## Niddah Daf 60a

###### Niddah 60a:1
[Niddah 60a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:1)

הָרוֹאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**who is** of age and already **seeing** a flow of menstrual blood, i.e., she has had a flow of menstrual blood.


###### Niddah 60a:2
[Niddah 60a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:2)

מִמַּאי? דּוּמְיָא דְּנִדָּה: מָה נִדָּה דְּקָחָזְיָא, אַף נׇכְרִית דְּקָא חָזְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **From where** does Rav know that this is referring to a gentile woman who once experienced a flow of blood? He infers from the mishna that the gentile woman it mentions is **similar to a menstruating woman: Just as a menstruating woman** is one **who sees,** i.e., who has already experienced bleeding, **so too,** the mishna is referring to an adult **gentile woman who** already **sees** menstrual blood.


###### Niddah 60a:3
[Niddah 60a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:3)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כִּי נָיֵים וְשָׁכֵיב רַב אַמְרַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. דְּתַנְיָא: תּוֹלָה בְּנׇכְרִית. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בְּנׇכְרִית הָרְאוּיָה לִרְאוֹת. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בִּרְאוּיָה לִרְאוֹת, אֲבָל רוֹאָה — לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet says: I say** that **when Rav was dozing or sleeping he said that *halakha*,** i.e., it is an error. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If a woman loaned her garment to a gentile and subsequently found a blood stain on it, **she attributes** the stain **to the gentile woman.** This *tanna* deems it permitted for her to attribute the blood to any gentile woman, regardless of her age or her likelihood of bleeding. **Rabbi Meir** disagrees and **says:** This applies specifically **to a gentile woman who is fit to see** menstrual blood. **And** the Gemara adds that **even Rabbi Meir says only that** the gentile woman must be **fit to see** menstrual blood, **but** he too agrees that **it is not necessary** for her to be **seeing** blood at that time. She does not have to have actually experienced bleeding at some point.


###### Niddah 60a:4
[Niddah 60a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרַאּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְחוּמְרָא? רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְקוּלָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** in response to Rav Sheshet’s challenge: **And** how can **you understand** that **Rabbi Meir** is coming **to be stringent?** Rav Sheshet maintains that according to the first *tanna* of the *baraita* she can attribute the blood stain to any gentile, whereas Rabbi Meir rules stringently that she may attribute it only to a gentile who is fit to experience bleeding. This is incorrect, as **Rabbi Meir** is actually coming **to be lenient.** In other words, the first *tanna* is more stringent, as he deems it permitted for her to attribute the blood stain only to a gentile woman who had experienced a menstrual flow at least once. By contrast, Rabbi Meir rules that she may attribute the stain to a gentile woman who is old enough to experience bleeding, even if she has never experienced a menstrual flow.


###### Niddah 60a:5
[Niddah 60a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:5)

דְּתַנְיָא: אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בְּנׇכְרִית, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: תּוֹלָה. וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הָךְ! תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: וְהִיא שֶׁרוֹאָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בִּרְאוּיָה לִרְאוֹת, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רוֹאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides the reason for Rava’s opinion. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: A woman who loaned her garment to a gentile woman and subsequently finds a blood stain on it **may not attribute** the stain **to** the **gentile woman. Rabbi Meir says** that **she may attribute** the blood stain to the gentile woman. **But if so,** the first *baraita*, which states that according to the first *tanna* she may attribute the blood stain to any gentile woman, is **difficult.** You must **answer like this:** According to the first *tanna* she may attribute the blood to any gentile woman provided that **she sees,** i.e., that she once experienced bleeding. By contrast, **Rabbi Meir says** a more lenient opinion, **that** she may attribute it to the gentile woman provided that **she is fit to see** menstrual blood, **and** this is the *halakha* **even though she has not** actually **seen** menstrual blood yet.


###### Niddah 60a:6
[Niddah 60a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:6)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תּוֹלָה בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם, בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** a *baraita* with regard to a woman who loaned her garment to another woman who was a lesser *zava*: The lender **may attribute** the blood stain on the loaned garment **to a woman who observes** a clean **day for** each **day** she experiences a discharge, if the blood is found **on her second** day, i.e., the day after she had a discharge, despite the fact that she does not have a presumptive status of seeing blood. It is nevertheless considered that her uterus is open and the likelihood is that she will experience bleeding.


###### Niddah 60a:7
[Niddah 60a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:7)

וּבְסוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעָה שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה, לְפִיכָךְ הִיא מְתוּקֶּנֶת וַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ מְקוּלְקֶלֶת, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה, לְפִיכָךְ שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְקוּלְקָלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** likewise, she may also attribute the blood stain if she loaned her garment **to a woman counting seven** clean days **who did not immerse** in a ritual bath, and who will now have to count another seven clean days. **Therefore,** the status of the one who loaned the garment **is fixed, and** the status of **the other** woman **is ruined** and she must begin her counting again; this is **the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: She may not attribute** the blood flow to either of these women. **Therefore,** the statuses of **both** the woman who loaned the garment and the one who borrowed it **are ruined,** in that both women are deemed impure.


###### Niddah 60a:8
[Niddah 60a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:8)

וְשָׁוִין, שֶׁתּוֹלָה בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם, בָּרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** both Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **agree that** a woman who lends her garment **may attribute** any blood stain found on it **to a woman** who **observes a day for a day** if it is **on her first** day of the discharge. In this case the status of the woman who borrowed the garment is no more ruined than it was already, as either way she can become pure on the following day.


###### Niddah 60a:9
[Niddah 60a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:9)

וּבְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טוֹהַר, וּבִבְתוּלָה שֶׁדָּמֶיהָ טְהוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** they also agree **in** a case where the woman who borrowed the garment was a woman after childbirth **who is observing** the period **of** the **blood of purity.** During these days, attributing the blood to her does not ruin her status, as any blood she emits is pure and does not affect her status. **And** similarly, the lender may attribute the blood stain **to a virgin** who engages in intercourse for the first time, **as her blood is pure,** as there is an assumption that it is hymenal bleeding rather than menstrual blood.


###### Niddah 60a:10
[Niddah 60a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:10)

״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל — לְמָה לִי? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the clause starting with: **Therefore,** mentioned **by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?** It is obvious that the status of only one woman is ruined, so what information does this observation add? The Gemara answers that this clause does not add any new information; rather, the *baraita* taught it **because** of the use of the similar clause beginning with: Therefore, stated **by Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi in the latter part of the *baraita*.


###### Niddah 60a:11
[Niddah 60a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:11)

״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי — לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָהִיא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח כֶּתֶם גַּבַּהּ — תִּתְקַלְקַל, אִידַּךְ — לֹא תִּתְקַלְקַל; קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara persists: But **why do I** need the clause starting with: **Therefore,** in the statement **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi? That too is apparently superfluous. The Gemara explains: It is necessary, **lest you say** that the status of the woman **who has** the blood **stain found with her** when she is wearing the garment, should be **ruined,** whereas the status of **the other** woman should **not be ruined,** as the garment was not with her when the blood stain was discovered. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** the clause beginning with: Therefore, to stress that both women are impure.


###### Niddah 60a:12
[Niddah 60a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:12)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: טָמֵא וְטָהוֹר שֶׁהָלְכוּ בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, אֶחָד טָהוֹר וְאֶחָד טָמֵא — בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **Rav Ḥisda says:** In a case of two individuals, one of whom was **ritually impure and** the other of whom was **pure, who walked on two paths, one** of which was **pure and** the other **one impure** due to a corpse buried there, and neither remembers which path he took, and afterward they handled items of ritual purity, e.g., the portion of produce designated for the priest [*teruma*] or consecrated items, **we have arrived at the dispute** between **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.** According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, if one of the two individuals was already impure it can be assumed that he was the one who walked along the ritually impure path, and the other individual remains pure. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi claims that there is no assumption that the one who was pure retains that state, as it is equally possible that he walked along the ritually impure path.


###### Niddah 60a:13
[Niddah 60a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:13)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַדָּא: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, הָכָא מַאי נָפְקָא לַן מִינַּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda objects to this** suggestion of Rav Ḥisda, claiming that one cannot compare the two cases. It is possible that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **states** his *halakha* **only there,** with regard to a woman who observes a day for a day, as she can immerse in a ritual bath at any time, and **therefore both** women **are like each other,** i.e., both have a presumption of ritual purity. But **here,** in the case of the two individuals walking on two paths, **what** practical **difference** does it make to the one who was previously impure if he remains ritually impure? Since there is no change of status, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would agree in that case that it can be assumed that the individual who was previously impure was the one who walked on the impure path.


###### Niddah 60a:14
[Niddah 60a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:14)

וְרַב חִסְדָּא, סוֹף סוֹף אִיהִי טְבִילָה בָּעֲיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara asks: How would **Rav Ḥisda** respond to this claim? Rav Ḥisda would answer that a woman who observes a day for a day is also not fully pure, as **ultimately she requires immersion** in a ritual bath to complete her purification, and yet Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi still rejects the attribution of the blood flow to her. Accordingly, the two cases are comparable and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not assume that the individual who was already impure was the one who walked along the path that was impure.


###### Niddah 60a:15
[Niddah 60a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:15)

אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: טָמֵא וְטָהוֹר, וַאֲפִילּוּ טָהוֹר וְתָלוּי, שֶׁהָלְכוּ בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר — תּוֹלֶה טָמֵא בְּתָלוּי וְטָהוֹר בְּטָהוֹר, לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated** that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says:** In a case of two individuals, one of whom was **ritually impure and** the other of whom was **pure, or even** where one was **pure and** the other was impure due to **uncertainty, who walked on two** different **paths, one** of which was **impure and** the other **one pure,** and neither remembers which path he took, one may **attribute** by assuming that **the impure** path was the one traversed **by** the individual who was impure due to **uncertainty, and** the **pure** path was traversed **by** the one who was **ritually pure.** And **everyone agrees** with this ruling, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in this case. This statement is in accordance with Rav Adda’s objection, not in accordance with the suggestion of Rav Ḥisda.


###### Niddah 60a:16
[Niddah 60a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:16)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר לֵיוַאי: מַהוּ לִתְלוֹת כֶּתֶם בְּכֶתֶם? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי — לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai: What is** the *halakha* **with regard to attributing** a blood **stain to** a woman who is already impure due to having seen a blood **stain?** Rabbi Yoḥanan clarifies his question: **I am not raising** this **dilemma to you according to** the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Niddah 60a:17
[Niddah 60a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:17)

הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה הָתָם דְּקָא חָזְיָא מִגּוּפַהּ, אָמְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה, הָכָא דְּמֵעָלְמָא קָא אָתֵי — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains why his dilemma does not apply according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: **Now, and if there,** where one loaned her garment to a woman who observes a clean day for a day, which is a case **where she sees** a discharge **from her body,** and yet **you said** that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the other woman **may not attribute** the blood stain to her, then **here,** in the case of a woman who is impure merely due to having seen a blood stain, **where** her impurity **came from** a source **external** to her, is it **not all the more so** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not permit one to attribute the blood stain to her?


###### Niddah 60a:18
[Niddah 60a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:18)

כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הָתָם הוּא דְּקָא חָזְיָא מִגּוּפַהּ — תָּלְיָא, הָכָא דְּמֵעָלְמָא קָאָתֵי — לָא תָּלְיָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **when I raise** this **dilemma to you,** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.** Rabbi Yoḥanan clarifies the dilemma: Perhaps **it is** only **there,** in the case where she loaned her garment to a woman who observes a day for a day, **where she sees** the discharge **from her body,** that the lender **may attribute** the blood stain to her, whereas **here, where** it is possible that the stain **came from** a source **external** to her, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would **not** permit the lender to **attribute** this new blood stain to her. **Or perhaps it is no different,** and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would rule leniently in both cases.


###### Niddah 60a:19
[Niddah 60a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין תּוֹלִין. מָה טַעַם? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan: She **may not attribute** this blood stain to a woman who was already impure due to having seen a blood stain, and both women are ritually impure. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai: **What is the reason** that she may not attribute the blood stain to her? Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai answered: It is **because** in this case one **may not attribute** the new blood stain to that other woman, as her previous stain might have come from an external cause.


###### Niddah 60a:20
[Niddah 60a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:20)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אֵין תּוֹלִין כֶּתֶם בְּכֶתֶם, הִשְׁאִילָה חֲלוּקָהּ לְנׇכְרִית אוֹ לְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל הַכֶּתֶם — הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised an objection to** Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai from the following *baraita*: A woman who loans her garment to another and subsequently finds a blood stain on it **may not attribute** the blood **stain to** a woman who was impure due to having previously seen a blood **stain.** But if **she loaned her garment to a gentile woman or to** a woman who was **observing** days of impurity **due to** having seen a blood **stain, she may attribute** the blood stain found on the garment to that other woman.


###### Niddah 60a:21
[Niddah 60a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:21)

הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא: רֵישָׁא אָמְרַתְּ אֵין תּוֹלִין, סֵיפָא אָמְרַתְּ תּוֹלִין! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא רַבִּי, וְהָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before explaining the objection, the Gemara first analyzes the *baraita*. **This** *baraita* **itself** is **difficult.** In **the first clause you said** that a woman who loans her garment to another and subsequently finds a blood stain on it **may not attribute** the blood stain to a woman who was impure due to having previously seen a blood stain, whereas in **the latter clause you said** that she **may attribute** the blood stain to such a woman. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains this contradiction: **This** is **not difficult. This** first clause of the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and that** latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.**


###### Niddah 60a:22
[Niddah 60a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:22)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי — הָא בָּרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלָּהּ, הָא בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** an alternative resolution of the contradiction: Both **this** clause **and that** clause are in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. The difference is that **this** latter clause, where she may attribute the blood stain to the other woman, is referring to a case where the blood stain was found **on** that woman’s **first** day, when she had just found the blood stain and is impure for that day. Since she is in any case impure for that day, she is not adversely affected by having the new stain attributed to her. The case where the blood stain may not be attributed to the other woman is a case where the blood stain in question was found **on her second** day, i.e., the day after she found the blood stain, when she is not impure but merely requires immersion. The lender may not attribute the new blood stain to her, as that would render her ritually impure for an extra day.


###### Niddah 60a:23
[Niddah 60a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/60a:23)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הָא וְהָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל — וְלָא קַשְׁיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** yet another resolution of the *baraita*: Both **this** first clause **and that** latter clause are in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it** is **not difficult.**