## Niddah Daf 58b

###### Niddah 58b:1
[Niddah 58b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:1)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Niddah 58b:2
[Niddah 58b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 58b:3
[Niddah 58b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 58b:4
[Niddah 58b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Niddah 58b:5
[Niddah 58b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 58b:6
[Niddah 58b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Niddah 58b:7
[Niddah 58b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:7)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 58b:8
[Niddah 58b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Niddah 58b:9
[Niddah 58b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 58b:10
[Niddah 58b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Niddah 58b:11
[Niddah 58b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 58b:12
[Niddah 58b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:12)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Niddah 58b:13
[Niddah 58b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Niddah 58b:14
[Niddah 58b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:14)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 58b:15
[Niddah 58b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:15)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 58b:16
[Niddah 58b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:16)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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**.**


###### Niddah 58b:17
[Niddah 58b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:17)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 58b:18
[Niddah 58b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:18)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 58b:19
[Niddah 58b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Niddah 58b:20
[Niddah 58b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:20)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Niddah 58b:21
[Niddah 58b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:21)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 58b:22
[Niddah 58b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:22)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Niddah 58b:23
[Niddah 58b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:23)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 58b:24
[Niddah 58b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/58b:24)

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:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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:**