Niddah 59bנדה נ״ט ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Niddah 59b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
59bנ״ט ב

מתני׳ האשה שהיא עושה צרכיה וראתה דם רבי מאיר אומר אם עומדת טמאה ואם יושבת טהורה ר' יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך טהורה

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.

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

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.

גמ׳ מאי שנא עומדת דאמרינן מי רגלים הדור למקור ואייתי דם יושבת נמי נימא מי רגלים הדור למקור ואייתי דם

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?

אמר שמואל במזנקת מזנקת נמי דלמא בתר דתמו מיא אתא דם

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?

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

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.

אמר שמואל ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' יוסי וכן אורי ליה רבי אבא לקלא הלכה כרבי יוסי

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.

איש ואשה [כו'] איבעיא להו איש ואשה עומדין מה לי א"ר מאיר

§ 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?

כי אמר רבי מאיר בחד ספקא אבל בספק ספקא לא מטמא או דלמא לא שנא

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.

אמר ריש לקיש היא היא ממאי מדלא קתני ר' מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין

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.

א"ה השתא רבי מאיר בספק ספקא מטמא בחד ספקא מיבעיא להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי דאפילו בחד ספקא מטהר

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.

ואדמיפלגי בחד ספק להודיעך כחו דר' יוסי ליפלגו בספק ספקא להודיעך כחו דר' מאיר כח דהיתרא עדיף ליה

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.

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

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.

ורבי יוסי בחד ספקא מטהר בספק ספקא מיבעיא מהו דתימא הני מילי דיעבד אבל לכתחלה לא קא משמע לן

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.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן איש ואשה שעשו צרכיהן לתוך הספל ונמצא דם על המים רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין ור' שמעון מטמא

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.

איבעיא להו אשה יושבת מה לי אמר רבי שמעון כי אמר רבי שמעון בעומדת דדחיק לה עלמא אבל יושבת לא או דלמא לא שנא

§ 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.

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

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.

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

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.

ת"ש כיון דא"ר שמעון חזקת דמים מן האשה ל"ש עומדין ולא שנא יושבין

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.

מתני׳ השאילה חלוקה לנכרית או לנדה הרי זו תולה בה

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.

ג' נשים שלבשו חלוק אחד או שישבו על ספסל אחד ונמצא עליו דם כולן טמאות

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.

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

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.

גמ׳ אמר רב בנכרית

GEMARA: Rav says: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a gentile woman