## Niddah Daf 59a ###### Niddah 59a:1 [Niddah 59a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:1) הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ טִיפֵּי דָמִים לְמַטָּה וְטִיפֵּי דָמִים לְמַעְלָה — תּוֹלָה בְּעֶלְיוֹן עַד כִּגְרִיס. מַאי לַָאו כִּגְרִיס מִלְּמַטָּה? לָא, כִּגְרִיס מִלְּמַעְלָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** 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. ###### Niddah 59a:2 [Niddah 59a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:2) 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. **William Davidson Edition - English:** 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. ###### Niddah 59a:3 [Niddah 59a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:3) 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. **William Davidson Edition - English:** 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. ###### Niddah 59a:4 [Niddah 59a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:4) בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּכִגְרִיס, וְנִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ בְּכִגְרִיס וָעוֹד, מַהוּ? תִּבְעֵי לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, תִּבְעֵי לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** 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. ###### Niddah 59a:5 [Niddah 59a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:5) 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? **William Davidson Edition - English:** **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. ###### Niddah 59a:6 [Niddah 59a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:6) תָּא שְׁמַע: נִתְעַסְּקָה בֶּאֱדוֹם — אֵין תּוֹלָה בָּהּ שָׁחוֹר, בְּמוּעָט — אֵין תּוֹלָה בּוֹ מְרוּבָּה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? לָאו כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא?! **William Davidson Edition - English:** 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. ###### Niddah 59a:7 [Niddah 59a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:7) לָא, כְּגוֹן דְּנִתְעַסְּקָה בְּכִגְרִיס, וְנִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ שְׁנֵי גְּרִיסִין וָעוֹד. אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? **William Davidson Edition - English:** 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. ###### Niddah 59a:8 [Niddah 59a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:8) מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: שְׁקוֹל כִּגְרִיס (צִפּוֹר), שְׁדִי בֵּי מִצְעֵי; זִיל הָכָא — לֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, זִיל הָכָא — לֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. **William Davidson Edition - English:** 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. ###### Niddah 59a:9 [Niddah 59a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:9) אָמַר רָבָא: נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ מִין אֶחָד — תּוֹלָה בּוֹ כַּמָּה מִינִין. מֵיתִיבִי: נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּאָדוֹם — אֵין תּוֹלָה בּוֹ שָׁחוֹר! נִתְעַסְּקָה שָׁאנֵי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **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. ###### Niddah 59a:10 [Niddah 59a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:10) 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. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **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. ###### Niddah 59a:11 [Niddah 59a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:11) מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה [וְכוּ׳]. וְהָתַנְיָא: לֹא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת הַדָּבָר לְהָקֵל אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר! **William Davidson Edition - English:** § 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?** ###### Niddah 59a:12 [Niddah 59a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:12) אָמַר רָבִינָא: לֹא לְהָקֵל עַל דִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר עַל דִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וּכְתָמִים עַצְמָן דְּרַבָּנַן. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **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. ###### Niddah 59a:13 [Niddah 59a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:13) עֵד שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן, אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק, אוֹ לָא? **William Davidson Edition - English:** § 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?** ###### Niddah 59a:14 [Niddah 59a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:14) תָּא שְׁמַע: כֶּתֶם אָרוֹךְ — מִצְטָרֵף, טִפִּין טִפִּין — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק — לְמָה לִי צֵירוּף? הָאָמַר ״מָשׁוּךְ כֹּל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא״! **William Davidson Edition - English:** 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?** ###### Niddah 59a:15 [Niddah 59a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:15) אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פְּלִיגִי? לָא, לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק, וְכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק — בְּעֵד, אֲבָל בְּכֶתֶם — לָא. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **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. ###### Niddah 59a:16 [Niddah 59a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:16) תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק. הֲלָכָה — מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** 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. ###### Niddah 59a:17 [Niddah 59a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/59a:17) **הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם.**