Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 19a

MISHNAH. FIVE KINDS OF BLOOD IN A WOMAN ARE UNCLEAN: RED, BLACK, A COLOUR LIKE BRIGHT CROCUS, OR LIKE EARTHY WATER OR LIKE DILUTED WINE.³  BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ALSO A COLOUR LIKE THAT OF FENUGREEK WATER OR THE JUICE OF ROASTED MEAT; BUT BETH HILLEL DECLARE THESE CLEAN. ONE THAT IS YELLOW, AKABIA B. MAHALALEL DECLARES UNCLEAN AND THE SAGES DECLARE CLEAN. R. MEIR SAID: EVEN IF IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A LIQUID.⁴  R. JOSE RULED: IT DOES NEITHER THE ONE NOR THE OTHER.⁵

WHAT COLOUR IS REGARDED AS 'RED'? ONE LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND.⁴  'BLACK'? LIKE THE SEDIMENT OF INK; IF IT IS DARKER IT IS UNCLEAN AND IF LIGHTER IT IS CLEAN. 'BRIGHT CROCUS COLOUR'? LIKE THE BRIGHTEST SHADE IN IT.⁴  'A COLOUR LIKE EARTHY WATER'? EARTH FROM THE VALLEY OF BETH KEREM⁶  OVER WHICH WATER IS MADE TO FLOAT. 'ONE LIKE DILUTED WINE'? TWO PARTS OF WATER AND ONE OF WINE OF THE WINE OF SHARON.

GEMARA. Whence is it deduced that there is clean discharge of blood in a woman? Is it not possible that all blood that issues from her is unclean? — R. Hama b. Joseph citing R. Oshaia⁷  replied: Scripture says, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood,⁸  which implies between clean blood and unclean blood. But then, would the expression 'between a leprous stroke and a leprous stroke'⁸  also mean between an unclean stroke and a clean one? And should you reply: This is so indeed, [it could be retorted:] Is there at all a leprous stroke that is clean? And should you reply, 'It is all turned white; he is clean',⁹  [it could be retorted:] That is called a white scurf!¹⁰  Consequently it must mean: Between human leprosy and the leprosy of houses and the leprosy of garments, all of which are unclean; why then should it not be said heres also that the distinction implied is that between the blood of a menstruant and that of one suffering from gonorrhoea both of which are unclean?¹¹  — What a comparison! There¹²  [the controversy¹³  is well justified¹⁴  since] a difference of opinion might arise in the case of human leprosy on the lines of that between R. Joshua and the Rabbis. For we have learnt: If the bright spot¹⁵  preceded the white hair, he¹⁶  is unclean; if the reverse was the case, he is clean. If [the order of appearance is] a matter of doubt he is unclean; but R. Joshua said: It is as though darkened,¹⁷  and in connection with this Rabbah explained: It is as though [the spot] darkened¹⁸  and he is therefore clean.¹⁹  As regards leprosy in houses the point at issue²⁰  may be the one between R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. For we have learnt: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon ruled: A house never becomes unclean unless the leprosy appears in the size of two beans on two stones,²¹  in two walls,²¹  at a corner,²²  and it must be two beans in length and one bean in breadth.²³  What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's reason? — It is written²⁴  wall²⁵  and it is also written walls,²⁶  now what wall is it that is like two walls? Admit that that is a corner.²⁷  As regards leprosy in garments the divergence of opinion²⁸  may be the one between R. Jonathan b. Abtolemos and the Rabbis. For it was taught: R. Jonathan²⁹  b. Abtolemos stated, Whence is it deduced that leprosy that is spread over entire garments is clean? Since karahath³⁰  and gabahath³¹  are mentioned in respect of garments, and karahath³²  and gabahath³³  are also mentioned in the case of human beings, as in the latter case if the leprosy spread over the whole body, he is clean so also in the former case if it spread over the whole garment it is clean.³⁴  Here,³⁵  however, if clean blood does not exist, what could be the point at issue between them?³⁶  But whence is it inferred that these kinds of blood are clean and the others are unclean?³⁷  — R. Abbahu replied: Since Scripture says, And the Moabites saw the water as red as blood,³⁸  which indicates that blood is red.³⁹  Might it not be suggested that only red blood⁴⁰  is unclean but no other?⁴¹  — R. Abbahu replied: Scripture says; Her blood,⁴²  Her blood⁴³  implying four kinds.⁴⁴  But have we not learnt, FIVE KINDS? — R. Hanina replied: Black blood is really red [blood] that had deteriorated.⁴⁵  So it was also taught: Black blood is like the sediment of ink; if it is dark it is unclean, and if lighter, even though it has the colour of stibium, it is clean. And black blood is not black originally. It⁴⁶  assumes the black colour only after it is discharged, like the blood of a wound which becomes black after it had been discharged from it.

BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ALSO A COLOUR LIKE THAT OF FENUGREEK. But do not Beth Shammai uphold the deduction from, Her blood,⁴²  her blood⁴³  which imply four kinds?⁴⁴  — If you wish I may reply that they do not uphold it — And if you prefer I may reply that they do uphold it, but⁴⁷  did not R. Hanina explain, 'Black blood is really red [blood] that had deteriorated'?⁴⁸  Well, here also⁴⁹  it may be explained that [the blood]⁵⁰  had merely deteriorated.

BUT BETH HILLEL DECLARE THESE CLEAN. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?⁵¹  — The practical difference between them is

1. The object having been lost.
2. Because they do not agree that most such objects have one or other of the colours of the unclean kinds of blood. R. Johanan, by his limitation to three (supra 18a) of the cases in which the majority rule is given the force of a certainty, has implicitly indicated that, in the case dealt with by R. Judah, the uncleanness of the woman, which is entirely dependent on the majority rule, is not one of certainty but one of a doubtful nature. Consequently terumah that had been touched by the woman may not be burnt.
3. Mazug, wine mixed with water.
4. This is explained in the Gemara infra.
5. Lit., 'neither so nor so'.
6. V. Nid. III, 4.
7. MS.M., 'Joshua'.
8. Deut. XVII, 8.
9. Lev. XIII, 13.
10. Not a leprous stroke.
11. An objection against R. Oshaia's reply.
12. In the case of leprosy.
13. Implied in Deut. XVII, 8.
14. Though all leprosy is unclean.
15. In leprosy. Cf. Lev. XIII, 2-4.
16. The man affected.
17. Neg. IV, II.
18. Cf. If the plague be dim (or dark) … then the priest shall pronounce him clean (Lev. XIII, 6).
19. The dispute implied in Deut. XVII, 8, may consequently be analogous to the one between R. Joshua and the Rabbis.
20. Implied in Deut. XVII, 8.
21. The size of one bean on each.
22. Where the walls meet.
23. Neg. Xli, 3; so that each stone is covered by leprosy of the size of one bean by one bean, which is the minimum required for effecting uncleanness.
24. In respect of leprosy.
25. Lev. XIV, 37.
26. Ibid.
27. The divergence of view implied in Deut. XVII, 8, may consequently be one analogous to that between R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis.
28. Referred to in Deut. XVII, 8.
29. Var. lec. 'Nathan' (v. Zeb. 49b).
30. E.V., within, Lev. XIII, 55.
31. E.V., without, ibid.
32. E.V., bald head, ibid. 42.
33. E.V. bold forehead, ibid.
34. Sanh. 87b, Zeb. 44b. The dispute implied in Deut. XVII, 8, may consequently be the one between R. Jonathan b. Abtolemos and the Rabbis.
35. In the case of a divergence of view in respect of blood.
36. The authorities in dispute regarding blood referred to in Deut. XVII, 8. Consequently it must be conceded that clean blood also exists.
37. Cf. our Mishnah.
38. II Kings III, 22.
39. As red is the usual colour of blood, all blood which has one of the five colours enumerated in our Mishnah (all of which are shades of red) is unclean.
40. But if so, why does our Mishnah declare the others also to be unclean?
41. One like that of a wound.
42. Dameha, the plural form, Lev. Xli, 7.
43. Ibid. XX, 18 (cf. prev. n.).
44. Twice two (cf. prev. two notes).
45. The two colours may, therefore, be treated as one.
46. Being originally red.
47. As to the objection from the limitation of the number to five.
48. Supra. Of course he did.
49. Blood of the colour of fenugreek.
50. Being originally red.
51. In the first clause of our Mishnah.

ONE THAT IS YELLOW, AKABIA B. MAHALALEL DECLARES UNCLEAN. But does not Akabia uphold the deduction from 'Her blood, her blood', which imply four kinds?²  — If you wish I may reply: He does not uphold it. And if you prefer I may reply: He does uphold it; but did not R. Hanina explain, 'Black blood is really red [blood] that had deteriorated'? Well, here also it may be explained that [the blood] had merely deteriorated.²

AND THE SAGES DECLARE IT CLEAN. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?³  — The practical difference between them is the question of suspense.⁴

R. MEIR SAID: EVEN IF IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN etc. R. Johanan stated: R. Meir took up⁵  the line of Akabia b. Mahalalel and declared it⁶  unclean;⁷  and it is this that he in effect said to the Rabbis, 'Granted that where a woman finds a yellow bloodstain on her garment you do not regard her as unclean;⁸  where she observed a discharge of yellow blood from her body⁹  she must be deemed unclean'. If so, instead of saying, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A LIQUID, should he not have said 'on account of her observation'?¹⁰  — Rather, it is this that he in effect said to them, 'Granted that where the woman observed yellow blood at the outset you do not¹¹  regard her as unclean;¹²  where she observed first red blood¹³  and then a yellow discharge the latter also must be deemed unclean,¹⁴  since it is something like the liquids¹⁵  of a zab or a zabah'.¹⁶  And the Rabbis?¹⁷  — [An unclean liquid must be] similar to spittle; as spittle is formed in globules when it is discharged so must any other unclean liquid be one that is formed in globules when it is discharged; that liquid¹⁸  is therefore excluded since it is not formed in globules when discharged. If so, do not the Rabbis indeed give R. Meir a most satisfactory answer?¹⁹  — It is rather this that he said to them in effect: 'It¹⁸  should have the status of a liquid in respect of rendering seed susceptible to uncleanness'.²⁰  And the Rabbis?²¹  — [For such a purpose] it is necessary that it shall be like the blood of the slain,²²  which is not the case here. If so, did not the Rabbis indeed answer R. Meir well?¹⁹  — It is rather this that he in effect said to them: 'Deduce this²³  by gezera shawah;²⁴  here²⁵  it is written, Thy shoots²⁶  are a park of pomegranates²⁷  and elsewhere it is written, And sendeth²⁸  water upon the fields.²⁹  And the Rabbis?³⁰  A man may infer a ruling a minori ad majus on his own but he may not infer on his own one that is derived from a gezera shawah.³¹

R. JOSE RULED: IT DOES NEITHER THE ONE NOR THE OTHER etc. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?³²  — It is this that we were informed: Who is the first Tanna? R. Jose; for he who repeats a thing in the name of him who said it brings deliverance into the world.³³

WHAT COLOUR IS REGARDED AS RED? ONE LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND. What is meant by LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND? — Rab Judah citing Samuel replied: Like the blood of a slaughtered ox.³⁴  Why then was it not stated, 'Like the blood of slaughtering'? — If it had been stated, 'Like the blood of slaughtering' it might have been presumed to mean like the blood during the entire process of slaughtering,³⁵  hence we were told, LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND, meaning like that caused by the first stroke of the knife. 'Ulla replied:³⁶  Like the blood of [a wound inflicted on] a live bird. The question was raised: Does 'live'³⁷  exclude a slaughtered bird or does it possibly exclude an emaciated one? — This is undecided.³⁸  Ze'iri citing R. Hanina replied:³⁶  Like the blood of a head louse. An objection was raised: If she³⁹  killed a louse she may attribute the stain to it.⁴⁰  Does not this refer to a louse of any part of the body? — No, to one of her head. Ammi of Wardina⁴¹  citing R. Abbahu replied:³⁶  Like the blood of the little finger of the hand that was wounded and healed and wounded again. Furthermore, it does not mean that of any person but only that of a young unmarried man. And up to what age? — Up to that of twenty.

An objection was raised: She³⁹  may attribute it to her son⁴²  or to her husband.⁴²  [Now the attribution] to her son is quite reasonable since it is possible [that he was unmarried],⁴³  but how is this possible in the case of her husband?⁴⁴  — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: Where, for instance, the woman entered the bridal chamber but had no intercourse.⁴⁵  R. Nahman replied:⁴⁶  Like the blood of the arteries.⁴⁷

An objection was raised: It once happened that R. Meir attributed it⁴⁸

1. I.e., whether blood of a colour other than those of the five enumerated is (a) absolutely clean or (b) only doubtfully so. Beth Hillel are in agreement with (a) and the first Tanna agrees with (b).
2. Cf. nn. on previous paragraph but one.
3. In the first clause of our Mishnah.
4. Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut.
5. Lit., 'descended'.
6. A yellow discharge.
7. As menstrual blood.
8. Being yellow (an unusual colour for blood) it might well be presumed to have originated from some source other than her body.
9. So that its origin is certain.
10. Of an actual discharge.
11. Despite the observation.
12. Because yellow is not the colour of blood; UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN meaning: As other blood whose stain conveys uncleanness.
13. Which causes her to be definitely unclean.
14. Sc. in respect of conveying uncleanness to man or object that comes in contact with it.
15. Spittle, for instance.
16. Which, though they are no blood, convey uncleanness.
17. How, in view of this argument, could they maintain that a yellow discharge is clean in all circumstances?
18. A yellow discharge.
19. How then could R. Meir still maintain his view?
20. Cf. Lev. XI, 38.
21. Cf. supra n. 3.
22. Num. XXIII, 24, sc. blood on which life depends (cf. Pes. 16a).
23. That a yellow discharge renders seed susceptible to uncleanness.
24. V. Glos.
25. In respect of menstrual discharges.
26. Shelahayik (rt. [H]) euphemism (cf. prev. n.).
27. Cant. IV, 13.
28. Wesholeah (rt. [H]).
29. Job V, 10. Analogy between the two words of the same root: As the water referred to in Job renders seed susceptible to uncleanness so does a woman's discharge alluded to in Cant.
30. How can they maintain their view in opposition to the gezera shawah?
31. Which must be traditional if it is to be valid. As R. Meir drew the analogy on his own the Rabbis could well disregard it.
32. In the first clause of our Mishnah. Why then the repetition?
33. Cf. Ab. VI, 6.
34. The true colour of red. Cf. Yoma 56b.
35. During which the colours change.
36. To the question supra, what is meant by LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND?
37. Heb. hai (fem. haiyah) may mean both 'live' and 'sound', 'healthy'.
38. Teku.
39. A woman who discovered a bloodstain.
40. Infra 58b.
41. Place name (cf. 'Er. 49a). Wardina or Barada on the eastern bank of the Tigris was two hours distance from the north of Bagdad (cf. 'Er. (Sonc. ed.) p. 340, n. 11). Aliter: 'The fragrant (werad = rose) Ammi' (cf. Rashi).
42. If either of them was afflicted with a wound. Infra 58b.
43. And the blood of his wound satisfies, therefore, all the conditions laid down by R. Abbahu.
44. Who must be a married man (cf. prev. n. mut. mut.).
45. So that the blood is in reality that of an unmarried man (cf. prev. n. but one).
46. To the question, supra, what is meant by 'LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND'?
47. Hakazah, lit., 'blood letting'.
48. A stain.