## Niddah Daf 21b

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

הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק לֵידָה סְפֵק זִיבָה, מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**it is uncertain** whether **that** woman has the status of one who gave **birth,** and it is **uncertain** whether she has the status of a woman who experiences **an irregular discharge of blood from the uterus [*ziva*].** Therefore, **she brings an offering,** like any woman after childbirth or after *ziva*, **but** the offering **is not eaten** by the priests. The reason is that perhaps she neither gave birth nor experienced *ziva*, and is therefore exempt from bringing an offering. Consequently, her bird sin offering is disqualified, and is forbidden in consumption, as a bird offering is killed by pinching its neck, which is not the valid manner of slaughtering a non-sacred bird.


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

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִפְתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר בְּלֹא דָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua says:** The woman **brings an offering, and it is eaten.** The reason is that she is certainly either a woman after childbirth or a *zava*, **as opening of the womb is not possible without** a discharge of **blood.** The *tanna’im* in the *baraita* disagree about whether opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak maintains that this is also the issue in dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis in the mishna.


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

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא טִימֵּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא בַּחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי דָמִים, אֲבָל שֶׁל שְׁאָר מִינֵי דָמִים — טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Some say another version** of the above discussion. **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, but** if it has the appearance **of other types of blood,** the woman **is pure.**


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

אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה אֲדוּמָּה, וּשְׁחוֹרָה, יְרוּקָּה, וּלְבָנָה — אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ דָּם — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ טְמֵאָה.

**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, or black, green, or white, if there is blood** that emerges **with it,** the woman **is impure, and if not, she is pure. And Rabbi Yehuda says:** In **both this** case, where blood emerged, **and that** case, where no blood emerged, the woman **is impure.**


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

קָתָנֵי ״אֲדוּמָּה וּשְׁחוֹרָה, יְרוּקָּה וּלְבָנָה״, וּפְלִיג רַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its challenge: The *baraita* **teaches** both a case where the piece of tissue is **red or black,** and a case where it is not one of the four types of impure blood but it is **green or white,** i.e., in all of these cases the Rabbis hold that the woman is pure, **and** yet **Rabbi Yehuda disagrees** with their opinion.


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

וְכִי תֵימָא, כִּי פְּלִיג רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַאֲדוּמָּה וּשְׁחוֹרָה, אֲבָל יְרוּקָּה וּלְבָנָה לָא, אֶלָּא יְרוּקָּה וּלְבָנָה מַאן 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, **but** with regard to the case of a **green or white** piece he does **not** disagree with them, as he concedes that the woman is pure; **but** if that is so, **for** the sake of clarifying **whose** opinion does the *baraita* **teach** the case of **a green or white** piece of tissue?


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

אִילֵּימָא לְרַבָּנַן — הַשְׁתָּא אֲדוּמָּה וּשְׁחוֹרָה קָא 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 the case of **a red or black** piece of tissue **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 21b:8
[Niddah 21b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21b:8)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בְּאֶפְשָׁר לִפְתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר בְּלֹא דָּם קָמִיפַּלְגִי, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: קִשְּׁתָה שְׁנַיִם, וְלַשְּׁלִישִׁי הִפִּילָה, וְאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת מָה הִפִּילָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק לֵידָה סְפֵק זִיבָה, מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Yehuda 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, it is uncertain** whether she has the status of a woman who gave **birth,** and it is **uncertain** whether she has the status of a woman who experienced ***ziva*.** Therefore **she brings an offering, but it is not eaten** by the priests.


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

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל, לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִפְתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר בְּלֹא דָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua says:** The woman **brings an offering, and it is eaten.** The reason is that she is certainly either a woman after childbirth or a *zava*, **as opening of the womb is not possible without** a discharge of **blood.** This is also the matter in dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה, סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר כִּדְבָרָיו: קוֹרְעָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ דָּם בְּתוֹכָהּ — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of a woman **who discharges** an amorphous **piece** of tissue, **Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his statement:** A Sage who is presented with this piece of tissue should **tear it** to examine it. **If there is blood inside it,** the woman is **ritually impure, and if not, she is pure.**


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

כְּרַבָּנַן, וַעֲדִיפָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן. כְּרַבָּנַן — דְּאָמְרִי: אֶפְשָׁר לִפְתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר בְּלֹא דָּם. וַעֲדִיפָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן — דְּאִינְהוּ סָבְרִי: עִמָּהּ — אִין, בְּתוֹכָהּ — לָא, וְסוֹמְכוֹס סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּתוֹכָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara compares this *baraita* to the ruling of the mishna: This statement is basically **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis** in the mishna, **but it is** more **far-reaching,** i.e., more stringent, **than that** ruling of **the Rabbis. It is in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, as they say** that **opening of the womb is possible without** a discharge of **blood,** whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that opening of the womb is impossible without a discharge of blood. **But** the ruling of the *baraita* is more **far-reaching than that** ruling of **the Rabbis, as they hold** that if blood emerges **with** the piece of tissue, then **yes,** the woman is impure, but if blood is found **inside** the piece of tissue, she is **not** impure; **and Sumakhos holds** that **even** if blood is found **inside** the piece, the woman is impure.


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

וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה, רַבִּי אַחָא אוֹמֵר: קוֹרְעָהּ, אִם תּוֹכָהּ מַאֲדִים — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in **another** *baraita* with regard to a woman **who discharges** an amorphous **piece** of tissue, that **Rabbi Aḥa says:** One **tears it** open, and **if its interior looks red,** even if it contains no blood, the woman **is impure; and if** it does **not** have a red appearance, **she is pure.**


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

כְּסוֹמְכוֹס, וַעֲדִיפָא מִסּוֹמְכוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara compares this *baraita* to the aforementioned opinion of Sumakhos: This ruling of Rabbi Aḥa is basically **in accordance with** the opinion of **Sumakhos,** as Rabbi Aḥa also requires that the interior of the piece of tissue must be examined to see if there is blood on the inside, **but** it is more **far-reaching than** the opinion of **Sumakhos,** as Rabbi Aḥa deems the woman impure even if the piece of tissue merely looks red on the inside but does not contain blood.


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

וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה, רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין אוֹמֵר: קוֹרְעָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וּבַחֲתִיכָה לְבָנָה. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא זוּגָא דְּמִן חַדְיָיב, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה לְבָנָה — קוֹרְעָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in **another** *baraita* with regard to a woman **who discharges** an amorphous **piece** of tissue, that **Rabbi Binyamin says** one **tears it** open to examine it. **If it contains a bone,** it is considered a fetus, and **its mother is impure** with the impurity of a woman who gave **birth. Rav Ḥisda says: And** this applies **in** the case of **a white piece** of flesh; only in such a situation does the existence of a bone render it a fetus. **And likewise, when a pair** of Torah scholars **came from Ḥadyab, they came and brought a *baraita* with them:** In the case of a woman **who discharges a white piece** of tissue, one **tears it** open to examine it, and **if it contains a bone, its mother is impure** with the impurity of a woman who gave **birth.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה — קוֹרְעָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ דָּם אָגוּר — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה, כְּסוֹמְכוֹס, וְקִילָּא מִכּוּלְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:** With regard to a woman **who discharges** an amorphous **piece** of tissue, one **tears it** open to examine it. **If it contains** a quantity of **accumulated blood,** the woman **is impure; and if not, she is pure.** The Gemara comments: This is basically **in accordance with** the opinion of **Sumakhos,** that blood found inside the piece of tissue renders the woman impure, **but it is more lenient than all** the previous opinions, i.e., Sumakhos and Rabbi Aḥa, as according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai the woman is rendered impure only if there is a quantity of accumulated blood.


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

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: הָרוֹאָה דָּם בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת מַהוּ? ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת, אוֹ דִלְמָא הַאי ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה מִבִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira:** In the case of a woman **who** inserted a tube into her vagina and **sees blood,** i.e., she found blood **in** the **tube, what is** the *halakha*? Rabbi Yirmeya clarified his question: Since it is stated: “And if a woman has an issue, and her issue **in her flesh** is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days” (Leviticus 15:19), perhaps **the Merciful One states** in this verse that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through “her flesh” **and not through a tube. Or perhaps this** term: **“In her flesh,”** is **necessary** to teach the *halakha* **that** a woman **becomes impure** by finding blood **inside** her vagina **just as** she becomes impure by experiencing bleeding **outside** her vagina, i.e., once the blood enters the vaginal canal from the uterus the woman is ritually impure.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלֹא בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת, דְּאִי ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה מִבִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, אִם כֵּן נֵימָא קְרָא ״בַּבָּשָׂר״, מַאי ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״? שְׁמַע מִינָּה תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira **said to** Rabbi Yirmeya: **The Merciful One states: “In her flesh,”** meaning that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through “her flesh” **and not through a tube. As, if** the term **“in her flesh” is necessary** to teach **that** a woman **becomes impure** by finding blood **inside** her vagina **just as** by seeing blood **outside** her vagina, **if so, let the verse say: In the flesh. What** is the significance of the fact that the verse states: **“In her flesh”? Conclude two** conclusions **from** the term, both that a woman becomes impure by the presence of blood inside her vagina, and that a woman who experiences bleeding that emerged through a tube is ritually pure.


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

וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה — קוֹרְעָהּ, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ דָּם אָגוּר — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:** With regard to a woman **who discharges** an amorphous **piece** of tissue, one **tears it** open to examine it; **if it contains** a quantity of **accumulated blood,** the woman **is impure, and if not, she is pure?** If a woman who sees blood that emerged inside a piece of tissue becomes impure, the same should apply to a woman who sees blood that emerged through a tube.


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

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לִרְאוֹת דָּם בַּחֲתִיכָה, הָכָא אֵין דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לִרְאוֹת דָּם בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** with regard to a piece of tissue, the woman is impure, as **it is the manner of a woman to see blood inside** such **a piece** of tissue. Therefore, this blood fulfills the condition stated in the verse: “In her flesh.” By contrast, **here,** in the case of a tube, the woman should not be impure, as **it is not the manner of a woman to see blood** that emerged **through a tube.**


###### Niddah 21b:20
[Niddah 21b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21b:20)

לֵימָא שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּלֵאָה דָּם, אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ דָּם — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ — וְלֹא בַּשָּׁפִיר וְלֹא בַּחֲתִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that the *halakha* in the case of **a tube is** subject to a dispute between ***tanna’im*? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a woman **who discharges** an amorphous **piece** of tissue, **even though** the piece **is full of blood, if there is blood** on the outside that emerges **with it,** the woman **is impure; and if not, she is pure. Rabbi Eliezer says:** The term **“in her flesh”** teaches that a woman is rendered impure only by blood that emerges through direct contact with her flesh, **and not** by blood that emerges **in a gestational sac, nor** by blood that emerges **in** an amorphous **piece** of tissue.


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

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אֵימָא: שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ — וְלֹא בַּשָּׁפִיר וְלֹא בַּחֲתִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interrupts its citation of the *baraita* and asks: **Isn’t** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer** identical to that of **the first *tanna*?** The first *tanna* also says that a woman does not become impure due to blood found in a piece of tissue. Rather, the entire *baraita* is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and one must **say** that the *baraita* should read as follows: Even if the piece of tissue is full of blood the woman is pure, **as Rabbi Eliezer says** that the term **“in her flesh”** teaches that a woman is rendered impure only by blood that emerges through direct contact with her flesh, **and not** by blood that emerges **in a gestational sac, nor** by blood that emerges **in a piece** of tissue.


###### Niddah 21b:22
[Niddah 21b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21b:22)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין זֶה דַּם נִדָּה אֶלָּא דַּם חֲתִיכָה. תַּנָּא קַמָּא נָמֵי טַהוֹרֵי מְטַהֵר, אֶלָּא דְּפַלַּי פַּלּוֹיֵי אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And the Rabbis say:** If there is blood in the piece of tissue, **this is not menstrual blood, but rather the blood of** the **piece** of tissue. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t **the first *tanna* also deem** the woman **pure?** What is the difference between the opinion of the Rabbis and that of the first *tanna*? The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the difference **between** the opinion of the first *tanna* and that of the Rabbis **is** with regard to a case **where** the piece of tissue is **cracked,** and its blood comes in direct contact with the woman’s body.


###### Niddah 21b:23
[Niddah 21b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21b:23)

תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ — וְלֹא בַּשָּׁפִיר וְלֹא בַּחֲתִיכָה, וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּשִׁיעָא, אֲבָל פַּלַּי פַּלּוֹיֵי — טְמֵאָה. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The first *tanna* holds** that the term **“in her flesh”** teaches that a woman is rendered impure only by blood that emerges through direct contact with her flesh, **and not** by blood that emerges **in a gestational sac, nor** by blood that emerges **in a piece** of tissue. **And the same is true with regard to** blood that emerges through **a tube. But this statement** applies only in a case **where** the piece of tissue is **smooth, but** if it is **cracked,** the woman is **impure. What is the reason for** this exception? Since the blood comes in direct contact with the woman’s flesh, **we read** the term **“in her flesh” with regard to it,** i.e., it fulfills that condition.


###### Niddah 21b:24
[Niddah 21b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21b:24)

וְאָתוּ רַבָּנַן לְמֵימַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּפַלַּי פַּלּוֹיֵי — אֵין זֶה דַּם נִדָּה אֶלָּא דַּם חֲתִיכָה. הָא דַּם נִדָּה וַדַּאי טָמֵא, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis come to say: Even though** the piece of tissue **is cracked,** the woman is pure, as **this is not menstrual blood but rather the blood of** the **piece** of tissue. It can be inferred from here **that** if the blood is **menstrual blood,** the woman **is certainly impure, and** this is true **even** if the blood emerges **through a tube.** Accordingly, the *halakha* in the case of a tube is subject to a dispute between *tanna’im*.


###### Niddah 21b:25
[Niddah 21b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/21b:25)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּטְהוֹרָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says** that this suggestion should be rejected: **In** the case of **a tube, everyone agrees that** the woman **is pure,** as derived from the term “in her flesh.”