(59a:1)היו עליה טיפי דמים למטה וטיפי דמים למעלה תולה בעליון עד כגריס מאי לאו כגריס מלמטה לא כגריס מלמעלה
(59a:1)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.
(59a:2)איתמר נמצא עליה כגריס ועוד ואותו עוד רצופה בו מאכולת ר' חנינא אומר טמאה ר' ינאי אומר טהורה רבי חנינא אומר טמאה כי תליא בכגריס בכגריס ועוד לא תליא
(59a:2)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.
(59a:3)רבי ינאי אומר טהורה הני מילי היכא דלא רצופה בו מאכולת אבל היכא דרצופה בו מאכולת מוכחא מילתא דהאי ועוד דם מאכולת הוא פש ליה כגריס כיון דבעלמא תליא הכא נמי תליא
(59a:3)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.
(59a:4)בעי רבי ירמיה נתעסקה בכגריס ונמצא עליה בכגריס ועוד מהו תבעי לר' חנינא תבעי לר' ינאי
(59a:4)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.
(59a:5)תבעי לר' חנינא עד כאן לא קאמר ר' חנינא התם טמאה אלא דלא נתעסקה אבל הכא דנתעסקה תליא או דלמא אפילו לרבי ינאי דאמר טהורה הני מילי היכא דרצופה בו מאכולת אבל היכא דאין רצופה בו מאכולת לא תליא
(59a:5)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.
(59a:6)תא שמע נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בה שחור במועט אין תולה בו מרובה היכי דמי לאו כי האי גוונא
(59a:6)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.
(59a:7)לא כגון דנתעסקה בכגריס ונמצא עליה שני גריסין ועוד אי הכי מאי למימרא
(59a:7)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.
(59a:8)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.
(59a:9)אמר רבא נמצא עליה מין אחד תולה בו כמה מינין מיתיבי נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בו שחור נתעסקה שאני
(59a:9)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.
(59a:10)איכא דאמרי אמר רבא נתעסקה במין אחד תולה בו כמה מינין מיתיבי נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בו שחור כי קאמר רבא דאתעסקה בתרנגולת דאית בה כמה מיני דמא
(59a:10)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.
(59a:11)מעשה באשה [וכו'] והתניא לא אמרו חכמים את הדבר להקל אלא להחמיר
(59a:11)§ 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?
(59a:12)אמר רבינא לא להקל על דברי תורה אלא להחמיר על דברי תורה וכתמים עצמן דרבנן
(59a:12)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.
(59a:13)עד שהוא נתון איבעיא להו מי פליגי רבנן עליה דר"א ברבי צדוק או לא
(59a:13)§ 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?
(59a:14)תא שמע כתם ארוך מצטרף טפין טפין אין מצטרפין מני אי רבי אליעזר בר' צדוק למה לי צירוף האמר משוך כל שהוא טמא
(59a:14)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?
(59a:15)אלא לאו רבנן שמע מינה פליגי לא לעולם ר' אליעזר ברבי צדוק וכי אמר רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק בעד אבל בכתם לא
(59a:15)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.
(59a:16)ת"ש דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק הלכה מכלל דפליגי שמע מינה
(59a:16)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.
(59a:17)הדרן עלך הרואה כתם
(59b:1)MISHNA: In the case of a woman who is urinating and saw blood intermingled with the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinated while 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. Rabbi Yosei says: Whether she urinates in this manner, i.e., standing, or whether she urinates in that manner, i.e., sitting, she is ritually pure.
(59b:1)מתני׳ האשה שהיא עושה צרכיה וראתה דם רבי מאיר אומר אם עומדת טמאה ואם יושבת טהורה ר' יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך טהורה
(59b:2)In the case of a man and a woman who urinated into a basin [hasefel], and blood is found on the water in the basin, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. Even when it is clear that it is the blood of a woman who urinated, and there is only one uncertainty, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. In this case, there is a compound uncertainty: Did the blood originate with the man or with the woman, and did the blood come from the uterus or from a wound? And Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure, because there is only one uncertainty, as it is not the typical manner of the man to discharge blood with his urine; rather, the presumptive status of the blood is that it was discharged from the woman.
(59b:2)איש ואשה שעשו צרכיהן לתוך הספל ונמצא דם על המים רבי יוסי מטהר ורבי שמעון מטמא שאין דרך האיש להוציא דם אלא שחזקת דמים מן האשה
(59b:3)GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in a case where a woman finds blood in her urine Rabbi Meir distinguishes between a case where she is standing and a case where she is sitting. The Gemara asks: What is different about a situation where she is standing? The difference is that we say that while she was urinating the urine returned to the uterus and brought blood from there, which renders her impure. But if so, when she is sitting as well, let us say that the urine returns to the uterus and brings blood. Why does Rabbi Meir deem her ritually pure in that case?
(59b:3)גמ׳ מאי שנא עומדת דאמרינן מי רגלים הדור למקור ואייתי דם יושבת נמי נימא מי רגלים הדור למקור ואייתי דם
(59b:4)Shmuel says, in answer to this question: This mishna is referring specifically to a case where the urine flows in a steady stream, without the woman straining. In such a situation, when she is sitting and the urine flows in a steady stream, the stream of urine does not return to the uterus and bring blood. By contrast, if she is standing the urine does not flow in a steady stream, and she must strain to urinate. When she strains to urinate, the urine can bring blood from the uterus with it, whether she is standing or sitting. The Gemara objects: But in a case where she is sitting as well, when the urine flows in a steady stream, perhaps after the urine has finished, blood will come naturally from the uterus, and the flow of blood will mix with the urine?
(59b:4)אמר שמואל במזנקת מזנקת נמי דלמא בתר דתמו מיא אתא דם
(59b:5)Rabbi Abba says: This is no concern, as the mishna is referring to a case where she is sitting on the edge of the basin and urinates in a steady flow into the basin, and the blood is found only inside the basin. As, if it is so that after the stream of urine finished the blood came naturally from her uterus, the blood should have been found on the edge of the basin. Since the blood is found only inside the basin it is clear that it came with the urine, not separately.
(59b:5)אמר ר' אבא ביושבת על שפת הספל ומזנקת בתוך הספל ונמצא דם בתוך הספל דאם איתא דבתר דתמו מיא אתא על שפת הספל איבעי ליה לאשתכוחי
(59b:6)Shmuel said, and some say that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And similarly, Rabbi Abba ruled for a Sage called Kala, who inquired into this matter, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
(59b:6)אמר שמואל ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' יוסי וכן אורי ליה רבי אבא לקלא הלכה כרבי יוסי
(59b:7)§ The mishna teaches: In the case of a man and a woman who urinated into a basin, and blood is found on the water in the basin, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where a man and a woman were standing and they urinated into the same basin, and blood was found in the basin, what would Rabbi Meir, who distinguishes between a woman who was sitting and a woman who was standing, say the halakha is?
(59b:7)איש ואשה [כו'] איבעיא להו איש ואשה עומדין מה לי א"ר מאיר
(59b:8)The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: When Rabbi Meir said that a woman who sees blood in her urine while standing is impure, does this apply when there is only one uncertainty, i.e., whether the blood came from a wound or from the uterus? Whereas in a case of a compound uncertainty, i.e., whether the blood came from the man or from the woman, and even if it came from the woman, whether it came from a wound or from her uterus, perhaps Rabbi Meir does not deem her impure? Or perhaps there is no difference between the two cases according to Rabbi Meir.
(59b:8)כי אמר רבי מאיר בחד ספקא אבל בספק ספקא לא מטמא או דלמא לא שנא
(59b:9)Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Meir would rule in this case of a compound uncertainty exactly as he rules in that case of a single uncertainty, i.e., there is no difference between the two cases. Reish Lakish clarifies: From where do I know that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion? From the fact that the latter clause of the mishna does not teach: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei deem her pure. Instead, the mishna states merely that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure. This indicates that Rabbi Meir deems her impure even if a man and a woman both urinated into the same basin where the blood was found.
(59b:9)אמר ריש לקיש היא היא ממאי מדלא קתני ר' מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין
(59b:10)The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Reish Lakish’s opinion: If so, i.e., if according to Rabbi Meir a woman is impure even when a man also urinates into the same basin, now that Rabbi Meir deems her impure in a case of compound uncertainty, is it necessary for the mishna to teach his opinion in a case of one uncertainty? The Gemara answers: The mishna formulated the halakha in that manner to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that he deems her pure even in a case of one uncertainty.
(59b:10)א"ה השתא רבי מאיר בספק ספקא מטמא בחד ספקא מיבעיא להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי דאפילו בחד ספקא מטהר
(59b:11)The Gemara asks: But if so, rather than stating the dispute in a case of one uncertainty, which serves to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, let the tanna teach the dispute in a case of compound uncertainty, in order to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara answers: It is preferable for the tanna to teach the strength of a lenient ruling. If a tanna can formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the extent of the more lenient opinion, he will do so.
(59b:11)ואדמיפלגי בחד ספק להודיעך כחו דר' יוסי ליפלגו בספק ספקא להודיעך כחו דר' מאיר כח דהיתרא עדיף ליה
(59b:12)And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with Reish Lakish, and said: When Rabbi Meir says that the woman is impure, that applies only to a case of one uncertainty, but in a case of compound uncertainty Rabbi Meir did not say that she is impure. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: If so, i.e., if Rabbi Meir deems her pure when both a man and a woman urinate into the same basin, let the mishna teach: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei deem her pure. Why does the tanna mention only Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, that Rabbi Meir agrees with this ruling, but since the mishna left off with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei at the end of the first clause of the mishna, the tanna opened the latter clause with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as well.
(59b:12)ור' יוחנן אמר כי קאמר רבי מאיר בחד ספקא אבל בספק ספקא לא אמר אם כן ליתני ר"מ ור' יוסי מטהרין אין הכי נמי ואיידי דסליק מרבי יוסי פתח בדרבי יוסי
(59b:13)The Gemara asks: But as Rabbi Yosei deems her pure in a case of one uncertainty, is it necessary for the mishna to teach his opinion a case of a compound uncertainty? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to state that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure in a case of compound uncertainty, lest you say that this statement, that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure, applies only after the fact, if the woman has already touched pure items, but he does not deem her pure ab initio. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure even ab initio.
(59b:13)ורבי יוסי בחד ספקא מטהר בספק ספקא מיבעיא מהו דתימא הני מילי דיעבד אבל לכתחלה לא קא משמע לן
(59b:14)It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case of a man and a woman who urinated into a basin, and blood is found on the water in the basin, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei deem her ritually pure, and Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure, as there is only one uncertainty.
(59b:14)תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן איש ואשה שעשו צרכיהן לתוך הספל ונמצא דם על המים רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין ור' שמעון מטמא
(59b:15)§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure because there is only one uncertainty, as it is not the typical manner of the man to discharge blood with his urine. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where a woman was sitting and she urinated into a basin, and blood was found in the basin, what would Rabbi Shimon say? The Gemara explains the dilemma: When Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion, was he referring specifically to a woman who is standing, who in general must strain to urinate in such a position, and perhaps as a result the blood came from the uterus? Whereas if she is sitting without straining, in which case Rabbi Meir deems her pure, perhaps Rabbi Shimon agrees that she is not impure. Or perhaps there is no difference between the two cases according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
(59b:15)איבעיא להו אשה יושבת מה לי אמר רבי שמעון כי אמר רבי שמעון בעומדת דדחיק לה עלמא אבל יושבת לא או דלמא לא שנא
(59b:16)The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman urinates while sitting and blood is found in the basin, she can attribute the blood to a wound and she is pure, but if she is standing she cannot attribute the blood to a wound, and therefore she is impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei said: Both in this case and in that case she can attribute the blood to a wound and she is pure. Rabbi Shimon said: Both in this case and in that case she cannot attribute the blood to a wound, and she is impure.
(59b:16)ת"ש דתניא יושבת תולה עומדת אינה תולה דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך תולה ר"ש אומר בין כך ובין כך אינה תולה
(59b:17)Another dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: In a case where a man and a woman were sitting and urinated into the same basin, and blood was found in the basin, what would Rabbi Shimon say? The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: When Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion, was he referring to a woman who is standing, who in general must strain to urinate in such a position and perhaps as a result the blood came from the uterus, or to a case where she alone is sitting, which are cases of only one uncertainty? Whereas in a case of compound uncertainty, i.e., uncertainty whether the blood came from the man or from the woman, and even if it did come from the woman, whether it was from a wound or from her uterus, perhaps he does not say that she is impure. Or perhaps there is no difference between the cases, as it is entirely atypical for a man to discharge blood.
(59b:17)איבעיא להו איש ואשה יושבין מה לי א"ר שמעון כי אמר רבי שמעון עומדת דדחיק לה עלמא ויושבת דחד ספק אבל בספק ספקא לא אמר או דלמא לא שנה
(59b:18)The Gemara answers: Come and hear the mishna: Since Rabbi Shimon said that the presumptive status of the blood is that it was discharged from the woman, evidently there is no difference in his opinion whether she was standing or whether she was sitting.
(59b:18)ת"ש כיון דא"ר שמעון חזקת דמים מן האשה ל"ש עומדין ולא שנא יושבין
(59b:19)MISHNA: In a case where a woman lent her garment to a gentile woman or to a menstruating Jewish woman, and after the borrower returned the garment the owner wore it and then discovered a blood stain, she attributes the blood stain to the gentile or the menstruating woman.
(59b:19)מתני׳ השאילה חלוקה לנכרית או לנדה הרי זו תולה בה
(59b:20)In a case of three women who wore one garment or who sat on one bench [safsal], one after the other, and the garment, or bench, was examined before the first of them donned it, or sat on it, and it was clean, and after the third one removed the garment, or stood up, a blood stain was discovered on the garment or on the bench, all the women are ritually impure.
(59b:20)ג' נשים שלבשו חלוק אחד או שישבו על ספסל אחד ונמצא עליו דם כולן טמאות
(59b:21)If they sat on a stone bench or on the bench [ha’itzteva] of a bathhouse, neither of which can become ritually impure, the first because it is stone and the second because it is attached to the floor of the bathhouse, and a blood stain was found on one of those benches, Rabbi Neḥemya deems all three women ritually pure, as Rabbi Neḥemya would say: Any item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity is not susceptible to ritual impurity due to blood stains. The decree of impurity due to blood stains was limited to items susceptible to ritual impurity.
(59b:21)ישבו על ספסל של אבן או על האיצטבא של מרחץ רבי נחמיה מטהר שהיה רבי נחמיה אומר כל דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה אינו מקבל כתמים
(59b:22)GEMARA: Rav says: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a gentile woman
