## Niddah Daf 21a

###### Niddah 21a:1
[Niddah 21a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:1)

הַשָּׁרוֹנִי נִידּוֹן כַּכַּרְמְלִי, חַי וְלֹא מָזוּג, חָדָשׁ וְלֹא יָשָׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
For the purposes of the examination of blood, **the** wine **of the Sharon** region in Eretz Yisrael **has the same status as undiluted Carmelite** wine **and not diluted** Carmelite wine, **new** Carmelite wine **and not old** Carmelite wine.


###### Niddah 21a:2
[Niddah 21a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:2)

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אֲבוּדִימִי: וְכוּלָּן, אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא בְּכוֹס טְבֶרְיָא פָּשׁוּט. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁל כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ מַחְזִיק לוֹג — עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִמָּנֶה, שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין — עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִמָּאתַיִם. כּוֹס טְבֶרְיָא פָּשׁוּט, אֲפִילּוּ מַחֲזִיק שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין — עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִמָּנֶה, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּקְלִישׁ — יְדִיעַ בֵּיהּ טְפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: And** in **all** cases of blood that has the color of diluted wine, **one examines** blood **only with a simple Tiberian cup.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason? Abaye says:** Containers are designed according to **a universal** standard, such that a cup that can **contain a *log*** of wine, **one fashions it from** material weighing **one hundred dinars,** whereas a cup that can contain **two *log*, one fashions it from** material weighing **two hundred dinars.** By contrast, in the case of **a simple Tiberian cup, even** one that can **contain two *log*, one fashions it from** material weighing **one hundred dinars. And since** the material from which the cup is made **is weak,** it is more transparent and therefore the redness of the wine inside is **more noticeable.** Consequently, one must compare the blood to wine in a cup of this kind.


###### Niddah 21a:3
[Niddah 21a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:3)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כָּל הַיָּד.**


###### Niddah 21a:4
[Niddah 21a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:4)

מַתְנִי' **הַמַּפֶּלֶת** חֲתִיכָה, אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ דָּם — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ — טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of a woman **who discharges** an amorphous **piece** of tissue, **if there is blood** that emerges **with it,** the woman is **ritually impure** with the impurity of a menstruating woman. **And if not, she is pure,** as she is neither a menstruating woman nor a woman after childbirth. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** In **both this** case, where blood emerged, **and that** case, where no blood emerged, the woman **is impure** with the impurity of a menstruating woman, as there was certainly undetected blood that emerged with the flesh.


###### Niddah 21a:5
[Niddah 21a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:5)

הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין קְלִיפָּה, כְּמִין שַׂעֲרָה, כְּמִין עָפָר, כְּמִין יַבְחוּשִׁין אֲדוּמִּים — תָּטִיל לַמַּיִם: אִם נִמּוֹחוּ — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of a woman **who discharges** an item **similar to a shell,** or **similar to a hair,** or **similar to soil,** or **similar to mosquitoes,** if such items are **red, she should cast** them **into water** to ascertain their nature: **If they dissolved,** it is blood, and the woman **is impure** with the impurity of a menstruating woman; **and if not, she is pure.**


###### Niddah 21a:6
[Niddah 21a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:6)

הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים, חֲגָבִים, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים — אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶם דָּם טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of a woman **who discharges** an item **similar to fish** or to **grasshoppers, repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, if there is blood** that emerges **with them,** the woman **is impure** with the impurity of a menstruating woman. **And if not, she is pure.**


###### Niddah 21a:7
[Niddah 21a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:7)

הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין — אִם זָכָר — תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר, וְאִם נְקֵבָה — תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to a woman **who discharges** tissue in the form of **a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, whether** it had the form of **a non-kosher** species or **a kosher** species, **if** it was **a male** fetus, then **she observes** the periods of impurity, seven days, and purity, thirty-three days, established in the Torah (see Leviticus 12:2–5) **for** a woman who gives birth to **a male. And if** the fetus was **a female,** the woman **observes** the periods of impurity, fourteen days, and purity, sixty-six days, established in the Torah **for** a woman who gives birth to **a female.**


###### Niddah 21a:8
[Niddah 21a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:8)

וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ — תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִצּוּרַת אָדָם אֵינוֹ וָלָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the sex of the fetus **is unknown, she observes** the strictures that apply to a woman who gave birth both **to a male and to a female.** Accordingly, she is prohibited from engaging in intercourse for fourteen days, but after that, she will be permitted to engage in intercourse despite a discharge of uterine blood until thirty-three days pass after the seven days she would have been prohibited if the fetus were male. The prohibition to enter the Temple will continue until eighty days have passed from the discharge of the fetus. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Any** fetus **that is not of human form is not** regarded as **an offspring** with regard to observance of these periods, and she is permitted to engage in intercourse provided that she does not experience a discharge of uterine blood.


###### Niddah 21a:9
[Niddah 21a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:9)

**גְּמָ'** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא טִימֵּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא בַּחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת מִינֵי דָמִים, אֲבָל שֶׁל שְׁאָר מִינֵי דָמִים — טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if a woman discharges an amorphous piece of tissue and no blood emerges with it, the Rabbis say that she is pure, whereas Rabbi Yehuda says that she is impure. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: Rabbi Yehuda deemed** the woman **impure,** despite the fact that no blood emerged, **only in** the case of **a piece** of tissue that has the appearance **of** one of **the four types of** ritually impure **blood,** as in such a case the piece has the status of blood. **But** if it has the appearance **of other types of blood,** the woman **is pure.**


###### Niddah 21a:10
[Niddah 21a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:10)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: שֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת מִינֵי דָמִים — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טְמֵאָה, שֶׁל שְׁאָר מִינֵי דָמִים — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says** there is a different explanation of the dispute: If a woman discharges a piece of tissue that has the appearance **of** one of **the four types of** ritually impure **blood, everyone,** i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, **agrees** that she **is impure.** Likewise, if it has the appearance **of other types of blood, everyone agrees** that **she is pure.**


###### Niddah 21a:11
[Niddah 21a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:11)

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁהִפִּילָה, וְאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת מָה הִפִּילָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: זִיל בָּתַר רוֹב חֲתִיכוֹת, וְרוֹב חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל (מִינֵי) אַרְבַּעַת מִינֵי דָמִים הָוְיָין. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא אָמְרִינַן רוֹב חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת מִינֵי דָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree only** with regard to a case **where** the woman **discharged** an amorphous piece of tissue, **and she** herself **does not know** exactly **what** was the appearance of the piece of tissue that **she discharged,** e.g., if it was lost. **Rabbi Yehuda holds: Follow the majority of** discharges of amorphous **pieces** of tissue, **and the majority of pieces** of tissue **are** of the appearance **of** one of the **four types of** impure **blood. And the Rabbis hold: We do not say** that **the majority of pieces** of flesh have the appearance **of** one of the **four types of** impure **blood.**


###### Niddah 21a:12
[Niddah 21a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:12)

אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה אֲדוּמָּה, שְׁחוֹרָה, יְרוּקָּה, וּלְבָנָה — אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ דָּם טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ טְמֵאָה. קַשְׁיָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל בַּחֲדָא, וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּתַרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But when Rav Hoshaya came from Neharde’a, he came and brought a *baraita* with him** that states: In the case of a woman **who discharges a piece** of tissue that is **red, black, green, or white, if there is blood** that emerges **with it,** the woman **is impure, and if not, she is pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: Both** in **this** case, where blood emerged, **and** in **that** case, where no blood emerged, the woman **is impure.** This *baraita* poses **a difficulty to** the statement of **Shmuel with regard to one** aspect of his opinion, **and** it poses a difficulty **to** the statement of **Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to two** aspects of his opinion.


###### Niddah 21a:13
[Niddah 21a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:13)

לִשְׁמוּאֵל בַּחֲדָא, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא טִימֵּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא בַּחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת מִינֵי דָמִים, וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״יְרוּקָּה וּלְבָנָה״, וּפְלִיג רַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: It poses a difficulty **to** the statement of **Shmuel with regard to one** aspect of his opinion, **as Shmuel said** that **Rabbi Yehuda deemed** the woman **impure only in** the case of **a piece** of tissue that has the appearance **of** one of **the four types of** impure **blood, and** yet the *baraita* **teaches** that according to the Rabbis the woman is pure if the piece of tissue is **green or white,** which are not among the four colors of ritually impure blood, **and** that Rabbi Yehuda **disagrees** with their opinion.


###### Niddah 21a:14
[Niddah 21a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:14)

וְכִי תֵימָא, כִּי פְּלִיג רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַאֲדוּמָּה וּשְׁחוֹרָה, וְאַיְּרוּקָּה וּלְבָנָה לָא, אֶלָּא יְרוּקָּה וּלְבָנָה לְמַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **when Rabbi Yehuda disagrees** with the Rabbis, it is **with regard to** the case of **a red or black** piece of tissue, as these are among the four colors of ritually impure blood, **but with regard to** the case of **a green or white** piece he does **not** disagree with them, i.e., he concedes that the woman is pure, this cannot be correct. The Gemara explains why that explanation of the *baraita* is not possible: **But** if so, **for** the sake of clarifying **whose** opinion **does** the *baraita* **teach** the case of **a green or white** piece of tissue?


###### Niddah 21a:15
[Niddah 21a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:15)

אִילֵּימָא רַבָּנַן — הַשְׁתָּא אֲדוּמָּה וּשְׁחוֹרָה מְטַהֲרִי רַבָּנַן, יְרוּקָּה וּלְבָנָה מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא לָאו לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּפְלִיג!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that it comes to clarify the opinion of **the Rabbis,** that is unnecessary: **Now** that in a case of **a red or black** piece of tissue, which are among the four colors of ritually impure blood, **the Rabbis deem** the woman **pure, is** it **necessary** to state that they deem her pure in a case of **a green or white** piece? **Rather,** is it **not** coming **to** clarify the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** teaching that the Rabbis deem the woman pure in this case, **but** Rabbi Yehuda **disagrees** with them and deems her impure? This contradicts the explanation of Shmuel.


###### Niddah 21a:16
[Niddah 21a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:16)

וְתוּ, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר: שֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת מִינֵי דָמִים — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טְמֵאָה, הָא קָתָנֵי: אֲדוּמָּה וּשְׁחוֹרָה, וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** the *baraita* poses an additional difficulty **to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** in addition to the first difficulty explained above, **as he said** that if the piece of tissue has the appearance **of** one of **the four types of** ritually impure **blood** then **everyone agrees** that the woman **is impure,** and yet the *baraita* **teaches** the case of **a red or black** piece **and** states that **the Rabbis disagree** with Rabbi Yehuda and deem the woman pure.


###### Niddah 21a:17
[Niddah 21a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:17)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, כִּי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן אַיְּרוּקָּה וּלְבָנָה, אֲבָל אַאֲדוּמָּה וּשְׁחוֹרָה לָא, אֶלָּא אֲדוּמָּה וּשְׁחוֹרָה לְמַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **when the Rabbis disagree** with Rabbi Yehuda, it is **with regard to** the case of **a green or white** piece of tissue, **but in** the case of **a red or black** piece they do **not** disagree with him, as they concede that the woman is impure; **but** if that is so, then **for** the sake of clarifying **whose** opinion **does** the *baraita* **teach** the case of **a red or black** piece?


###### Niddah 21a:18
[Niddah 21a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:18)

אִילֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הַשְׁתָּא יְרוּקָּה וּלְבָנָה טְמֵאָה, אֲדוּמָּה וּשְׁחוֹרָה מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that it comes to clarify the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** this is unnecessary: **Now** that Rabbi Yehuda holds that in a case of **a green or white** piece the woman **is impure,** despite the fact that they are not among the four colors of ritually impure blood, **is** it **necessary** to state that she is impure in a case of **a red or black** piece? **Rather,** is it **not** coming to clarify the opinion of **the Rabbis,** teaching that Rabbi Yehuda deems the woman impure in this case, **but the Rabbis disagree** with him and maintain that she is pure?


###### Niddah 21a:19
[Niddah 21a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21a:19)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: בְּאֶפְשָׁר לִפְתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר בְּלֹא דָּם קָמִיפַּלְגִי, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: קִשְּׁתָה שְׁנַיִם, וְלַשְּׁלִישִׁי הִפִּילָה, וְאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת מָה הִפִּילָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says** there is a different explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda: **They disagree with regard to** whether or not **opening of the womb is possible without** a discharge of **blood. And** they disagree **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute between these *tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If a woman experienced **difficulty in labor** during which blood emerged on **two** consecutive days, **and on the third** day **she discharged, but she does not know what she discharged,** i.e., whether it was a stillborn human fetus, and whether blood emerged during the miscarriage,