נדה נט

נדה נט

הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ טִיפֵּי דָמִים לְמַטָּה וְטִיפֵּי דָמִים לְמַעְלָה — תּוֹלָה בְּעֶלְיוֹן עַד כִּגְרִיס. מַאי לַָאו כִּגְרִיס מִלְּמַטָּה? לָא, כִּגְרִיס מִלְּמַעְלָה.

If there were on a woman’s body small drops of blood and large drops of blood, she may attribute these drops to an external source, even with regard to the largest drop, provided that it is up to the size of a split bean. What, is it not that a drop the size of a split bean itself is considered small, like a drop that is less than the size of a bean, which contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna? The Gemara responds: No, it means that a drop exactly the size of a split bean is like a large drop, i.e., a drop greater than a bean.

אִיתְּמַר: נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ כִּגְרִיס וָעוֹד, וְאוֹתוֹ עוֹד רְצוּפָה בּוֹ מַאֲכוֹלֶת. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אוֹמֵר: טְמֵאָה, רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אוֹמֵר טְמֵאָה — כִּי תָּלְיָא בְּכִגְרִיס, בְּכִגְרִיס וָעוֹד לָא תָּלְיָא.

It was stated: If a stain was found on a woman and it was the size of a split bean and slightly more, which is too large to be attributed to a louse, and in that area that was slightly more than a bean there was a squashed louse, what is the status of that woman? Rabbi Ḥanina says she is ritually impure, as the stain is not attributed to a louse; Rabbi Yannai says she is pure. The Gemara explains their opinions: Rabbi Ḥanina says she is impure, in accordance with the halakha that a woman may attribute a stain to a louse only with regard to a stain whose area is up to the area of a split bean, whereas with regard to a stain the size of a split bean and slightly more, she may not attribute it to a louse.

רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: טְהוֹרָה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי — הֵיכָא דְּלֹא רְצוּפָה בּוֹ מַאֲכוֹלֶת, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דִּרְצוּפָה בּוֹ מַאֲכוֹלֶת — מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דְּהַאי וָעוֹד דַּם מַאֲכוֹלֶת הוּא, פָּשׁ לֵיהּ כִּגְרִיס, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעָלְמָא תָּלְיָא — הָכָא נָמֵי תָּלְיָא.

By contrast, Rabbi Yannai says she is pure, as he maintains that this statement that one may not attribute a stain larger than a bean to a louse applies only where there is no louse squashed on the stain. But in a case where there is a louse squashed on the stain it is apparent that this blood that causes the stain to be slightly more than the size of a bean is the blood of a louse. Since it is visibly squashed there, there is no uncertainty in this regard. When that area is subtracted one is left with a stain that is the size of a split bean, and one may say that since in general a woman attributes a stain the size of a bean to a louse, here too, she may attribute the stain to another, second louse.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּכִגְרִיס, וְנִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ בְּכִגְרִיס וָעוֹד, מַהוּ? תִּבְעֵי לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, תִּבְעֵי לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי.

With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Yannai, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If a woman was occupied with an item the size of a split bean, e.g., the blood of a slaughtered bird, or eye salve, and then a stain was found on her the size of a split bean and slightly more, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yirmeya elaborates: The dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, who maintained in the previous case that she is impure, and the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, who ruled that she is pure.

תִּבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא הָתָם ״טְמֵאָה״ אֶלָּא דְּלֹא נִתְעַסְּקָה, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּנִתְעַסְּקָה — תָּלְיָא? אוֹ דִלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי דְּאָמַר ״טְהוֹרָה״ — הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דִּרְצוּפָה בּוֹ מַאֲכוֹלֶת, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאֵין רְצוּפָה בּוֹ מַאֲכוֹלֶת — לֹא תָּלְיָא?

The dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as perhaps Rabbi Ḥanina states there that she is impure only where she was not occupied with a louse, and there is no reason to attribute the stain to that cause. But here, where she was occupied with an item that can stain her, it can be claimed that she may attribute the stain to that source. Or perhaps, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, who said in the previous case that she is pure, that statement applies only where a louse was found squashed on the stain; but in a case where there is no louse squashed on the stain and there is no certainty that part of the stain came from another source, she may not attribute part of the stain to the item she was occupied with and part of the stain to a louse. In this situation everyone agrees she is impure.

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִתְעַסְּקָה בֶּאֱדוֹם — אֵין תּוֹלָה בָּהּ שָׁחוֹר, בְּמוּעָט — אֵין תּוֹלָה בּוֹ מְרוּבָּה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? לָאו כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא?!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: If a woman was occupied with a red item she may not attribute a black stain to it. Likewise, if she was dealing with a small item she may not attribute a large stain to it. What are the circumstances of the second clause of this baraita? Is it not referring to a case like this dilemma raised by Rabbi Yirmeya where she was occupied with an item the size of a bean and a stain was found on her that was the size of a bean and slightly more? If so, the baraita teaches that in such a situation she may not attribute the stain to the item.

לָא, כְּגוֹן דְּנִתְעַסְּקָה בְּכִגְרִיס, וְנִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ שְׁנֵי גְּרִיסִין וָעוֹד. אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?

The Gemara responds: No, the baraita is referring to a case where she was occupied with an item the size of a split bean, and subsequently a stain was found on her the size of two split beans and slightly more. In this situation she may not attribute the stain to the item she was occupied with. The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating this case? Even if as much of the stain as possible is attributed to the item, a stain larger than a bean remains, and that part cannot be attributed to that source.

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: שְׁקוֹל כִּגְרִיס (צִפּוֹר), שְׁדִי בֵּי מִצְעֵי; זִיל הָכָא — לֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, זִיל הָכָא — לֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers that the ruling of the baraita is necessary lest you say that one should take the blood stain the size of a split bean that came from the blood of the bird she was previously occupied with and cast it into the middle of the stain. In other words, assume the blood from the bird is in the middle of the large stain, joining together two smaller stains. Consequently, one could say: Go here and measure the stain on this side, and there is no measure that transmits impurity, as it is less than the size of a bean, and likewise, go there, to the other side, and there is no measure that transmits impurity. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, and in such a case she is impure.

אָמַר רָבָא: נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ מִין אֶחָד — תּוֹלָה בּוֹ כַּמָּה מִינִין. מֵיתִיבִי: נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּאָדוֹם — אֵין תּוֹלָה בּוֹ שָׁחוֹר! נִתְעַסְּקָה שָׁאנֵי.

Rava says: If one type of a stain was found on a woman, e.g., a stain from the sap of a sycamore tree or an eye salve, she may attribute other stains to that source, even if the stains are of several types, i.e., if they differ in color from the first stain. The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rava from the aforementioned baraita: If a woman was occupied with a red item she may not attribute a black stain to it. The Gemara answers: A situation where she was occupied is different from Rava’s case. Since she was occupied with a red item, there is no reason to attribute a black stain to that source. In Rava’s case, by contrast, she was not occupied with any item, and therefore one can say that just as a stain of one type was sprayed upon her without her knowledge, the same occurred with regard to the other types of stains.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּמִין אֶחָד — תּוֹלָה בּוֹ כַּמָּה מִינִין. מֵיתִיבִי: נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּאָדוֹם — אֵין תּוֹלָה בּוֹ שָׁחוֹר! כִּי קָאָמַר רָבָא, דְּאִתְעַסַּקָה בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת דְּאִית בַּהּ כַּמָּה מִינֵי דְּמָא.

Some say a different version of the above discussion. Rava says: If a woman was occupied with an item of one type, she may attribute stains of several types to it. The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rava: If a woman was occupied with a red item she may not attribute a black stain to it. The Gemara answers: When Rava said his ruling he was referring to a situation where she was occupied with a slaughtered chicken, which has several types of blood, and therefore she may attribute stains of different types to that cause.

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה [וְכוּ׳]. וְהָתַנְיָא: לֹא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת הַדָּבָר לְהָקֵל אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר!

§ The mishna teaches that there was an incident involving one woman who came before Rabbi Akiva and he deemed her pure, to the surprise of his students. He explained to them 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. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the Sages did not state the matter of the impurity of blood stains to be lenient, but rather to be stringent?

אָמַר רָבִינָא: לֹא לְהָקֵל עַל דִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר עַל דִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וּכְתָמִים עַצְמָן דְּרַבָּנַן.

Ravina says that there is no contradiction between these two statements: The very institution of the impurity of blood stains was enacted so as not to be more lenient than Torah law, but rather to be stringent beyond Torah law. But since the impurity of blood stains themselves is by rabbinic law, the Sages were lenient in specific cases.

עֵד שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן, אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק, אוֹ לָא?

§ The mishna teaches with regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was later found on the cloth, that Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, maintains that if the stain is round it is ritually pure and if it is elongated it is ritually impure. Concerning this a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, or not?

תָּא שְׁמַע: כֶּתֶם אָרוֹךְ — מִצְטָרֵף, טִפִּין טִפִּין — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק — לְמָה לִי צֵירוּף? הָאָמַר ״מָשׁוּךְ כֹּל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא״!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: An elongated stain combines with other elongated stains, so that if together they form the area of slightly more than a bean the woman is impure. But a series of drops do not combine to constitute a stain that renders her impure. Whose opinion is stated in this baraita? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, why do I need a combination in the case of an elongated stain? Didn’t he say that an elongated stain of any size renders her impure?

אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פְּלִיגִי? לָא, לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק, וְכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק — בְּעֵד, אֲבָל בְּכֶתֶם — לָא.

Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, and should one not conclude from it that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok? The Gemara responds: No, actually the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, and when Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said an elongated stain is ritually impure he was referring to a stain found on an examination cloth; but with regard to a regular stain of an elongated shape, he does not hold it is impure regardless of its size.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק. הֲלָכָה — מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok. Since Shmuel rules that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, it may be derived by inference that the Rabbis disagree with his opinion, as otherwise there would be no need for a ruling of halakha. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is correct.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם.

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who is urinating and saw blood intermingled with the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinated while standing she is ritually impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. And if she is sitting, she is ritually pure, as it is clear that the blood is from a wound. Rabbi Yosei says: Whether she urinates in this manner, i.e., standing, or whether she urinates in that manner, i.e., sitting, she is ritually pure.

מַתְנִי’ הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה צְרָכֶיהָ וְרָאֲתָה דָּם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם עוֹמֶדֶת — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם יוֹשֶׁבֶת — טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ טְהוֹרָה.

In the case of a man and a woman who urinated into a basin [hasefel], and blood is found on the water in the basin, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. Even when it is clear that it is the blood of a woman who urinated, and there is only one uncertainty, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. In this case, there is a compound uncertainty: Did the blood originate with the man or with the woman, and did the blood come from the uterus or from a wound? And Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure, because there is only one uncertainty, as it is not the typical manner of the man to discharge blood with his urine; rather, the presumptive status of the blood is that it was discharged from the woman.

אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָשׂוּ צׇרְכֵיהֶן לְתוֹךְ הַסֵּפֶל, וְנִמְצָא דָּם עַל הַמַּיִם — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֵר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָאִישׁ לְהוֹצִיא דָּם, אֶלָּא שֶׁחֶזְקַת דָמִים מִן הָאִשָּׁה.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in a case where a woman finds blood in her urine Rabbi Meir distinguishes between a case where she is standing and a case where she is sitting. The Gemara asks: What is different about a situation where she is standing? The difference is that we say that while she was urinating the urine returned to the uterus and brought blood from there, which renders her impure. But if so, when she is sitting as well, let us say that the urine returns to the uterus and brings blood. Why does Rabbi Meir deem her ritually pure in that case?

גְּמָ’ מַאי שְׁנָא עוֹמֶדֶת, דְּאָמְרִינַן: מֵי רַגְלַיִם הֲדוּר לְמָקוֹר וְאַיְיתִי דָּם? יוֹשֶׁבֶת נָמֵי נֵימָא: מֵי רַגְלַיִם הֲדוּר לְמָקוֹר וְאַיְיתִי דָּם!

Shmuel says, in answer to this question: This mishna is referring specifically to a case where the urine flows in a steady stream, without the woman straining. In such a situation, when she is sitting and the urine flows in a steady stream, the stream of urine does not return to the uterus and bring blood. By contrast, if she is standing the urine does not flow in a steady stream, and she must strain to urinate. When she strains to urinate, the urine can bring blood from the uterus with it, whether she is standing or sitting. The Gemara objects: But in a case where she is sitting as well, when the urine flows in a steady stream, perhaps after the urine has finished, blood will come naturally from the uterus, and the flow of blood will mix with the urine?

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בִּמְזַנֶּקֶת. מְזַנֶּקֶת נָמֵי, דִּלְמָא בָּתַר דְּתַמּוּ מַיָּא אֲתָא דָּם?

Rabbi Abba says: This is no concern, as the mishna is referring to a case where she is sitting on the edge of the basin and urinates in a steady flow into the basin, and the blood is found only inside the basin. As, if it is so that after the stream of urine finished the blood came naturally from her uterus, the blood should have been found on the edge of the basin. Since the blood is found only inside the basin it is clear that it came with the urine, not separately.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: בְּיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל שְׂפַת הַסֵּפֶל, וּמְזַנֶּקֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַסֵּפֶל, וְנִמְצָא דָּם בְּתוֹךְ הַסֵּפֶל, דְּאִם אִיתָא דְּבָתַר דְּתַמּוּ מַיָּא אֲתָא — עַל שְׂפַת הַסֵּפֶל אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי.

Shmuel said, and some say that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And similarly, Rabbi Abba ruled for a Sage called Kala, who inquired into this matter, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְכֵן אוֹרִי לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְקָלָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

§ The mishna teaches: In the case of a man and a woman who urinated into a basin, and blood is found on the water in the basin, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where a man and a woman were standing and they urinated into the same basin, and blood was found in the basin, what would Rabbi Meir, who distinguishes between a woman who was sitting and a woman who was standing, say the halakha is?

אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה [וְכוּ׳]. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה עוֹמְדִין, מָה לִי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר?

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: When Rabbi Meir said that a woman who sees blood in her urine while standing is impure, does this apply when there is only one uncertainty, i.e., whether the blood came from a wound or from the uterus? Whereas in a case of a compound uncertainty, i.e., whether the blood came from the man or from the woman, and even if it came from the woman, whether it came from a wound or from her uterus, perhaps Rabbi Meir does not deem her impure? Or perhaps there is no difference between the two cases according to Rabbi Meir.

כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּחַד סְפֵקָא, אֲבָל בִּסְפֵק סְפֵקָא לָא מְטַמֵּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Meir would rule in this case of a compound uncertainty exactly as he rules in that case of a single uncertainty, i.e., there is no difference between the two cases. Reish Lakish clarifies: From where do I know that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion? From the fact that the latter clause of the mishna does not teach: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei deem her pure. Instead, the mishna states merely that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure. This indicates that Rabbi Meir deems her impure even if a man and a woman both urinated into the same basin where the blood was found.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הִיא הִיא. מִמַּאי? מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֲרִין״.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Reish Lakish’s opinion: If so, i.e., if according to Rabbi Meir a woman is impure even when a man also urinates into the same basin, now that Rabbi Meir deems her impure in a case of compound uncertainty, is it necessary for the mishna to teach his opinion in a case of one uncertainty? The Gemara answers: The mishna formulated the halakha in that manner to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that he deems her pure even in a case of one uncertainty.

אִי הָכִי, הַשְׁתָּא רַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּסְפֵק סְפֵקָא מְטַמֵּא, בְּחַד סְפֵקָא מִיבַּעְיָא? לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּחַד סְפֵקָא מְטַהֵר.

The Gemara asks: But if so, rather than stating the dispute in a case of one uncertainty, which serves to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, let the tanna teach the dispute in a case of compound uncertainty, in order to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara answers: It is preferable for the tanna to teach the strength of a lenient ruling. If a tanna can formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the extent of the more lenient opinion, he will do so.

וְאַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בְּחַד סָפֵק, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, לִיפְלְגוּ בִּסְפֵק סְפֵקָא, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר! כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with Reish Lakish, and said: When Rabbi Meir says that the woman is impure, that applies only to a case of one uncertainty, but in a case of compound uncertainty Rabbi Meir did not say that she is impure. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: If so, i.e., if Rabbi Meir deems her pure when both a man and a woman urinate into the same basin, let the mishna teach: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei deem her pure. Why does the tanna mention only Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, that Rabbi Meir agrees with this ruling, but since the mishna left off with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei at the end of the first clause of the mishna, the tanna opened the latter clause with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as well.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּחַד סְפֵקָא, אֲבָל בִּסְפֵק סְפֵקָא לָא אָמַר. אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנֵי ״רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֲרִין״! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּסָלֵיק מֵרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — פָּתַח בִּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

The Gemara asks: But as Rabbi Yosei deems her pure in a case of one uncertainty, is it necessary for the mishna to teach his opinion a case of a compound uncertainty? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to state that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure in a case of compound uncertainty, lest you say that this statement, that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure, applies only after the fact, if the woman has already touched pure items, but he does not deem her pure ab initio. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure even ab initio.

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּחַד סְפֵקָא מְטַהֵר, בִּסְפֵק סְפֵקָא מִיבַּעְיָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּיעֲבַד, אֲבָל לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case of a man and a woman who urinated into a basin, and blood is found on the water in the basin, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei deem her ritually pure, and Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure, as there is only one uncertainty.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָשׂוּ צׇרְכֵיהֶן לְתוֹךְ הַסֵּפֶל, וְנִמְצָא דָּם עַל הַמַּיִם — רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֲרִין, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַמֵּא.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure because there is only one uncertainty, as it is not the typical manner of the man to discharge blood with his urine. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where a woman was sitting and she urinated into a basin, and blood was found in the basin, what would Rabbi Shimon say? The Gemara explains the dilemma: When Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion, was he referring specifically to a woman who is standing, who in general must strain to urinate in such a position, and perhaps as a result the blood came from the uterus? Whereas if she is sitting without straining, in which case Rabbi Meir deems her pure, perhaps Rabbi Shimon agrees that she is not impure. Or perhaps there is no difference between the two cases according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אִשָּׁה יוֹשֶׁבֶת, מָה לִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעוֹמֶדֶת, דִּדְחִיק לַהּ עָלְמָא, אֲבָל יוֹשֶׁבֶת — לָא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman urinates while sitting and blood is found in the basin, she can attribute the blood to a wound and she is pure, but if she is standing she cannot attribute the blood to a wound, and therefore she is impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei said: Both in this case and in that case she can attribute the blood to a wound and she is pure. Rabbi Shimon said: Both in this case and in that case she cannot attribute the blood to a wound, and she is impure.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: יוֹשֶׁבֶת — תּוֹלָה, עוֹמֶדֶת — אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ — תּוֹלָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ — אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה.

Another dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: In a case where a man and a woman were sitting and urinated into the same basin, and blood was found in the basin, what would Rabbi Shimon say? The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: When Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion, was he referring to a woman who is standing, who in general must strain to urinate in such a position and perhaps as a result the blood came from the uterus, or to a case where she alone is sitting, which are cases of only one uncertainty? Whereas in a case of compound uncertainty, i.e., uncertainty whether the blood came from the man or from the woman, and even if it did come from the woman, whether it was from a wound or from her uterus, perhaps he does not say that she is impure. Or perhaps there is no difference between the cases, as it is entirely atypical for a man to discharge blood.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה יוֹשְׁבִין, מָה לִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — עוֹמֶדֶת דִּדְחִיק לַהּ עָלְמָא, וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת דְּחַד סָפֵק, אֲבָל בִּסְפֵק סְפֵקָא — לָא אָמַר, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

The Gemara answers: Come and hear the mishna: Since Rabbi Shimon said that the presumptive status of the blood is that it was discharged from the woman, evidently there is no difference in his opinion whether she was standing or whether she was sitting.

תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן ״חֶזְקַת דָּמִים מִן הָאִשָּׁה״ — לָא שְׁנָא עוֹמְדִין וְלָא שְׁנָא יוֹשְׁבִין.

MISHNA: In a case where a woman lent her garment to a gentile woman or to a menstruating Jewish woman, and after the borrower returned the garment the owner wore it and then discovered a blood stain, she attributes the blood stain to the gentile or the menstruating woman.

מַתְנִי’ הִשְׁאִילָה חֲלוּקָהּ לְנׇכְרִית אוֹ לְנִדָּה — הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָּהּ.

In a case of three women who wore one garment or who sat on one bench [safsal], one after the other, and the garment, or bench, was examined before the first of them donned it, or sat on it, and it was clean, and after the third one removed the garment, or stood up, a blood stain was discovered on the garment or on the bench, all the women are ritually impure.

שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁלָּבְשׁוּ חָלוּק אֶחָד, אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ עַל סַפְסָל אֶחָד, וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם — כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת.

If they sat on a stone bench or on the bench [ha’itzteva] of a bathhouse, neither of which can become ritually impure, the first because it is stone and the second because it is attached to the floor of the bathhouse, and a blood stain was found on one of those benches, 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 decree of impurity due to blood stains was limited to items susceptible to ritual impurity.

יָשְׁבוּ עַל סַפְסָל שֶׁל אֶבֶן אוֹ עַל הָאִיצְטְבָא שֶׁל מֶרְחָץ — רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְטַהֵר. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה — אֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל כְּתָמִים.

GEMARA: Rav says: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a gentile woman

גְּמָ’ אָמַר רַב: בְּנׇכְרִית