Niddah

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.  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.  R. JOSE RULED: IT DOES NEITHER THE ONE NOR THE OTHER. WHAT COLOUR IS REGARDED AS 'RED'? ONE LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND.  '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.  'A COLOUR LIKE EARTHY WATER'? EARTH FROM THE VALLEY OF BETH KEREM  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. Oshaia  replied: Scripture says, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood,  which implies between clean blood and unclean blood. But then, would the expression 'between a leprous stroke and a leprous stroke'  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',  [it could be retorted:] That is called a white scurf!  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?  — What a comparison! There  [the controversy  is well justified  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 spot  preceded the white hair, he  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,  and in connection with this Rabbah explained: It is as though [the spot] darkened  and he is therefore clean.  As regards leprosy in houses the point at issue  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,  in two walls,  at a corner,  and it must be two beans in length and one bean in breadth.  What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's reason? — It is written  wall  and it is also written walls,  now what wall is it that is like two walls? Admit that that is a corner.  As regards leprosy in garments the divergence of opinion  may be the one between R. Jonathan b. Abtolemos and the Rabbis. For it was taught: R. Jonathan  b. Abtolemos stated, Whence is it deduced that leprosy that is spread over entire garments is clean? Since karahath  and gabahath  are mentioned in respect of garments, and karahath  and gabahath  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.  Here,  however, if clean blood does not exist, what could be the point at issue between them?  But whence is it inferred that these kinds of blood are clean and the others are unclean?  — R. Abbahu replied: Since Scripture says, And the Moabites saw the water as red as blood,  which indicates that blood is red.  Might it not be suggested that only red blood  is unclean but no other?  — R. Abbahu replied: Scripture says; Her blood,  Her blood  implying four kinds.  But have we not learnt, FIVE KINDS? — R. Hanina replied: Black blood is really red [blood] that had deteriorated.  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. It  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,  her blood  which imply four kinds?  — If you wish I may reply that they do not uphold it — And if you prefer I may reply that they do 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. BUT BETH HILLEL DECLARE THESE CLEAN. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?  — The practical difference between them is