## Niddah Daf 57b

###### Niddah 57b:1
[Niddah 57b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:1)

מַתְנִי' **הָרוֹאָה** כֶּתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה — טְמֵאָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה — טְהוֹרָה. עַל עֲקֵבָהּ וְעַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ — טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** A woman **who sees** a blood **stain on her flesh adjacent to** her **vagina [*beit haturpa*],** i.e., a place where blood that originated in her vagina could be found, **becomes ritually impure,** as there is a concern that it originated in the uterus and is menstrual blood. **And** if it was discovered on her flesh in an area **not adjacent to** her **vagina** she remains **ritually pure,** as it certainly did not originate in the uterus. If the 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.


###### Niddah 57b:2
[Niddah 57b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:2)

עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ — מִבִּפְנִים טְמֵאָה, מִבַּחוּץ טְהוֹרָה, וְעַל הַצְּדָדִין מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 she is **ritually pure, and** if it was **on the sides,** either **from here,** i.e., on the front of her leg or foot, **or from there,** i.e., on the back of her leg or foot, she is also **ritually pure,** as blood from the uterus could not have reached there.


###### Niddah 57b:3
[Niddah 57b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:3)

רָאֲתָה עַל חֲלוּקָהּ מִן הֶחָגוּר וּלְמַטָּה — טְמֵאָה, מִן הֶחָגוּר וּלְמַעְלָה — טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל בֵּית יָד שֶׁל חָלוּק, אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where the woman **saw** a blood stain **on her robe,** if it was **from the belt and below** she is **ritually impure,** as blood from the uterus could have reached there; if it was **from the belt and above** she is **ritually pure.** In a case where **she saw** the stain **on the** end of the **sleeve of the robe, if** the sleeve can **reach adjacent to** her **vagina** she is **ritually impure; and if not,** i.e., if the stain is in a place on the sleeve that does not reach adjacent to the vagina, she is **ritually pure.**


###### Niddah 57b:4
[Niddah 57b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:4)

הָיְתָה פּוֹשַׁטְתּוֹ וּמִתְכַּסָּה בּוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ כֶּתֶם — טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חוֹזֵר, וְכֵן בַּפּוּלְיוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If it was a robe which **she would remove and with which she would cover** herself **at night, wherever** on the robe **that the stain is found,** the stain renders her **ritually impure, due to** the fact **that** the robe **moves** while the woman is asleep and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. **And likewise with regard to a kerchief [*bapoleyos*],** no matter where the blood is found on the kerchief, the woman is impure.


###### Niddah 57b:5
[Niddah 57b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:5)

**גְּמָ'** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בָּדְקָה קַרְקַע עוֹלָם, וְיָשְׁבָה עָלֶיהָ, וּמָצְאָה דָּם עָלֶיהָ — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ — עַד שֶׁתַּרְגִּישׁ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the cases discussed in the mishna concerning a blood stain found on a woman, **Shmuel says:** If a woman **examined the ground** beneath her to see if it was clean from blood and other substances, and she found nothing, **and** subsequently she **sat upon it and** then **found blood on it,** although it might be assumed that this blood came from her, **she is ritually pure.** The reason is **as it is stated:** “And her issue **in her flesh** shall be blood, she shall be in her menstrual state seven days” (Leviticus 15:19). This verse teaches that a woman does not become impure **unless she senses,** i.e., experiences some type of sensation, **in her flesh** that she emitted blood from her uterus. Since this woman did not sense an emission of blood, she is pure.


###### Niddah 57b:6
[Niddah 57b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:6)

הַאי ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״בְּבָשָׂר״, מַאי ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: עַד שֶׁתַּרְגִּישׁ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can Shmuel interpret the verse in this manner? After all, **he requires this** term: **“In her flesh,”** to teach a different *halakha*, **that** a woman **becomes impure** by finding blood **inside** her body **just as** by seeing blood **outside** her body, i.e., provided that the blood is uterine blood, even if it is currently situated inside her vaginal canal, she is impure. The Gemara answers: **If so,** if it serves to teach only that blood inside is like blood outside, **let the verse say: In the flesh. What** is the reason that the verse states: **“In her flesh”? Conclude from** this term that a woman does not become impure **unless she senses in her flesh.**


###### Niddah 57b:7
[Niddah 57b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:7)

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״, וְלֹא בְּשָׁפִיר וְלֹא בַּחֲתִיכָה! תַּרְתֵּי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And still,** Shmuel **requires** the term **“in her flesh”** to teach that she is impure only if the blood touches her flesh, **and not** through blood found **in a gestational sac, nor** through blood found **in** an amorphous **piece** of tissue that she emitted. The Gemara answers: **Conclude two** conclusions **from** this verse, as the plain meaning of the term teaches all these *halakhot*.


###### Niddah 57b:8
[Niddah 57b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה צְרָכֶיהָ, וְרָאֲתָה דָּם. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם עוֹמֶדֶת — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם יוֹשֶׁבֶת — טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a mishna at the beginning of the next chapter (59b): In the case of **a woman who is urinating and sees blood** intermingled with the urine, **Rabbi Meir says: If** she urinates while **she is 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.


###### Niddah 57b:9
[Niddah 57b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:9)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַרְגִּשָׁה — יוֹשֶׁבֶת אַמַּאי טְהוֹרָה? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַרְגִּשָׁה, וְקָתָנֵי: עוֹמֶדֶת טְמֵאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this mishna: **What are the circumstances? If she sensed** while urinating, then in the case where **she is sitting, why is she ritually pure,** according to Shmuel? **Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where she did not sense** while urinating? **And** yet the mishna **teaches** that if she urinates while **she is standing** she is **ritually impure.** This indicates that her status does not depend on her sensing, which contradicts the statement of Shmuel.


###### Niddah 57b:10
[Niddah 57b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:10)

לְעוֹלָם דְּאַרְגִּשָׁה, וְאֵימוֹר ״הַרְגָּשַׁת מֵי רַגְלַיִם הֲוַאי״. עוֹמֶדֶת — הֲדוּר מֵי רַגְלַיִם לְמָקוֹר (וְאַיְיתִי) [וְאַיְיתוֹ] דָּם, וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת — טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This affords no proof, as the mishna is **actually** referring to a case **where she sensed** while urinating, **and** yet since this feeling accompanied urination, one might **say** it **was the sensation of urine.** Consequently, if she urinated while **standing,** the **urine would return to** her **uterus and bring blood** with it. **But** if she urinated while **sitting** the urine cannot return to the uterus and therefore she is **pure,** as the sensation is attributed to her urine.


###### Niddah 57b:11
[Niddah 57b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: עֵד שֶׁהָיָה נָתוּן תַּחַת הַכַּר, וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם — אִם עָגוֹל טָהוֹר, וְאִם מָשׁוּךְ טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** the mishna below (58b): With regard to **an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was** later **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** it is **ritually pure.** There is no concern that this blood might have come from her examination, as a woman examines through an act of wiping and a stain produced in this manner would not be round. **And if** the stain is **elongated** it is **ritually impure,** as this shape can be formed by an examination.


###### Niddah 57b:12
[Niddah 57b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:12)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה — עָגוֹל אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַרְגִּישָׁה, וְקָתָנֵי: מָשׁוּךְ טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the mishna: **What are the circumstances? If she sensed,** then in the case where the stain is **round why** is it **pure? Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where she did not sense? And** yet the mishna **teaches** that **an elongated** stain is **impure.** This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel that a woman is rendered impure only if she sensed.


###### Niddah 57b:13
[Niddah 57b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:13)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה, וְאֵימוֹר ״הַרְגָּשַׁת עֵד הֲוַאי״, מָשׁוּךְ — וַדַּאי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָא, עָגוֹל — טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** the mishna is **actually** referring to a case **where she sensed, but** since she also performed an examination one might **say** this **was the sensation of the examination cloth.** Consequently, if the stain was **elongated,** as appropriate for a stain produced by an examination, the blood **certainly came from her body,** whereas if the stain was **round** it is **pure,** as this is not the usual appearance of a stain from an examination.


###### Niddah 57b:14
[Niddah 57b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ — טְמֵאִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אֹתְיוֹם — טְמֵאִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ לְאַחַר זְמַן — טְמֵאִים מִסָּפֵק, וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another mishna (14a): If blood **was found on his,** i.e., the husband’s, examination cloth following intercourse, the woman and her husband are both **ritually impure** for seven days, in accordance with the *halakha* of a menstruating woman and one who engages in intercourse with her, **and they are** each **liable to** bring a sin **offering** for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*]. If blood **was found on her** cloth **immediately** after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise **ritually impure** for seven days **and are** each **liable to** bring a sin **offering.** If blood **was found on her** swatch **after time** passed, they are both **ritually impure due to uncertainty,** as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, **and they are exempt from** bringing **the** sin **offering.**


###### Niddah 57b:15
[Niddah 57b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:15)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה, לְאַחַר זְמַן אַמַּאי פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַרְגִּישָׁה, וְקָתָנֵי נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אֹתְיוֹם טְמֵאִין וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן! לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאַרְגִּישָׁה, וְאֵימָא הַרְגָּשַׁת שַׁמָּשׁ הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this mishna: **What are the circumstances? If** it is referring to a situation **where she sensed,** then in the case where blood was found on her cloth **after time** passed, **why are they exempt from** bringing **the** sin **offering? Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where she did not sense? And** yet the mishna **teaches** that if blood **was found on her** cloth **immediately** after intercourse, they are **ritually impure** for seven days **and are** each **liable to** bring a sin **offering.** Once again, this contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: **No,** the mishna is **actually** referring to a case **where she sensed, but** since she was engaging in intercourse at the time, one might **say** this **was the sensation** of the male **organ.**


###### Niddah 57b:16
[Niddah 57b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:16)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שְׁלֹשָׁה סְפֵקוֹת בָּאִשָּׁה — עַל בְּשָׂרָה, סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָמֵא. עַל חֲלוּקָהּ, סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָהוֹר. וּבְמַגָּעוֹת וּבְהֶיסֵּטוֹת, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** from a *baraita*: **You are found** to **say** that there are **three uncertainties** involving cases where blood is found **on a woman** or her garments. If a stain is discovered **on her flesh** and there is **uncertainty whether it is impure or pure,** the *halakha* is that it is **impure.** If it is found **on her robe** and there is **uncertainty whether it is impure or pure,** the *halakha* is that it is **pure. And** in the case of a woman whose status as a menstruating woman is uncertain, **with regard to** her **touching** items **and with regard to** her **moving** items, one should **follow the majority.**


###### Niddah 57b:17
[Niddah 57b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:17)

מַאי ״הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב״? לָאו אִם רוֹב יָמֶיהָ טְמֵאִין — טְמֵאָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אַרְגִשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*: **What** is the meaning of the phrase: **Follow the majority,** with regard to this woman of uncertain status? Does this **not** mean that **if** for **the majority of her days** she is in a state of **ritual impurity,** as she emits impure blood on many days, then **she is** considered **impure** even when her status is uncertain? **And** since this *baraita* does not differentiate between cases where she did and did not sense, the ruling that one follows the majority, and that she is impure, evidently applies **even though she did not sense,** which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel.


###### Niddah 57b:18
[Niddah 57b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:18)

לָא, אִם רוֹב יָמֶיהָ בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה חָזְיָא — טְמֵאָה, דְּאֵימוֹר אַרְגִשָׁה וְלָאו אַדַּעְתַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No** proof may be brought from here, as this is what the *baraita* means: **If** on **the majority of her days** this woman **sees** blood accompanied **by a sensation, she is impure,** despite the fact that she is uncertain whether she had a sensation, **as** one can **say she sensed** on this occasion as well, **but** it was **not on her mind,** i.e., she did not pay attention to it at the time.


###### Niddah 57b:19
[Niddah 57b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:19)

אָמַר מָר: עַל בְּשָׂרָה סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָמֵא, עַל חֲלוּקָהּ סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר — טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before returning to the opinion of Shmuel, the Gemara analyzes the other clauses of this *baraita*. **The Master said** above: If a stain is discovered **on her flesh** and there is **uncertainty whether it is impure or pure,** it is **impure;** if it is found **on her robe** and there is **uncertainty whether it is impure or pure,** it is **pure.** The juxtaposition of these two cases indicates that the blood is found in the same area in both instances.


###### Niddah 57b:20
[Niddah 57b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:20)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, עַל חֲלוּקָהּ אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? וְהָא תְנַן: מִן הֶחָגוּר וּלְמַטָּה טָמֵא! וְאִי מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ אַמַּאי טָמֵא? וְהָתְנַן: רָאֲתָה דָּם עַל בְּשָׂרָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה טְהוֹרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** the blood was discovered **from the belt and below,** then when it was found **on her robe why is she pure? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was **from the belt and below** she is **ritually impure? And if** the blood was **from the belt and above,** then if it was discovered **on her flesh why is she impure? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that if **she saw blood on her flesh** in an area **not adjacent to** her **vagina** she remains **ritually pure?**


###### Niddah 57b:21
[Niddah 57b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:21)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים. עַל בְּשָׂרָה — מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָאי, דְּאִי מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָאי — עַל חֲלוּקָהּ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי. עַל חֲלוּקָהּ — מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָא, דְּאִי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָא — עַל בְּשָׂרָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that the blood was discovered **from the belt and below, and if you wish, say** instead that it was found **from the belt and above.** The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, say** that the blood was found **from the belt and below,** as the *baraita* is referring to a situation where the blood can be attributed to an external factor, **e.g.,** a case **where she passed through a marketplace of butchers [*tabbaḥim*].** Consequently, if the blood is found **on her flesh** it is assumed that **it came from her body, as, if it came from the** outside **world, it should have been found on her robe** as well. If it is discovered **on her robe** it is assumed that **it came from the** outside **world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh** as well.


###### Niddah 57b:22
[Niddah 57b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:22)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, כְּגוֹן דְּאִזְדְּקַרָה עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ — וַדַּאי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָאי, דְּאִי מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָאי — עַל חֲלוּקָהּ אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי. עַל חֲלוּקָהּ — מֵעָלְמָא אֲתָאי, דְּאִי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָאי — עַל בְּשָׂרָה אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ אִשְׁתְּכוֹחֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the blood was found **from the belt and above,** and the *baraita* is referring to a situation where it is possible the blood came from her body, **e.g.,** a case **where she jumped** backward. Therefore, if the blood is found **on her flesh it certainly came from her body, as, if it came from the** outside **world, it should have been found on her robe** as well. And if it is discovered **on her robe** the assumption is that **it came from** the outside **world, as, if it came from her body, it should have been found on her flesh** as well.


###### Niddah 57b:23
[Niddah 57b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/57b:23)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר טָמֵא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה. וְעוֹד תְּנַן: הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתּוּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה. אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי: מוֹדֶה שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection from the *baraita* to the opinion of Shmuel: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** that if a stain is discovered **on her flesh** and there is **uncertainty whether it is impure or pure,** it is **impure, and** this is the *halakha* **even though she did not sense,** which contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. **And furthermore, we learned** in the mishna that a woman **who sees** a blood **stain on her flesh adjacent to** her **vagina becomes ritually impure, and** this is apparently the *halakha* **even though she did not sense. Rav Yirmeya of Difti says:** The ruling of Shmuel that a woman must sense in order to be rendered impure applies only by Torah law. But **Shmuel concedes that** in all the cases cited above, where it is indicated that a woman is impure despite the fact that she did not sense, **she is impure**