Niddah

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?  — 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. AND THE SAGES DECLARE IT CLEAN. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?  — The practical difference between them is the question of suspense. R. MEIR SAID: EVEN IF IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN etc. R. Johanan stated: R. Meir took up  the line of Akabia b. Mahalalel and declared it  unclean;  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;  where she observed a discharge of yellow blood from her body  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'?  — Rather, it is this that he in effect said to them, 'Granted that where the woman observed yellow blood at the outset you do not  regard her as unclean;  where she observed first red blood  and then a yellow discharge the latter also must be deemed unclean,  since it is something like the liquids  of a zab or a zabah'.  And the Rabbis?  — [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 liquid  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?  — It is rather this that he said to them in effect: 'It  should have the status of a liquid in respect of rendering seed susceptible to uncleanness'.  And the Rabbis?  — [For such a purpose] it is necessary that it shall be like the blood of the slain,  which is not the case here. If so, did not the Rabbis indeed answer R. Meir well?  — It is rather this that he in effect said to them: 'Deduce this  by gezera shawah;  here  it is written, Thy shoots  are a park of pomegranates  and elsewhere it is written, And sendeth  water upon the fields.  And the Rabbis?  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. R. JOSE RULED: IT DOES NEITHER THE ONE NOR THE OTHER etc. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?  — 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. 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.  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,  hence we were told, LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND, meaning like that caused by the first stroke of the knife. 'Ulla replied:  Like the blood of [a wound inflicted on] a live bird. The question was raised: Does 'live'  exclude a slaughtered bird or does it possibly exclude an emaciated one? — This is undecided.  Ze'iri citing R. Hanina replied:  Like the blood of a head louse. An objection was raised: If she  killed a louse she may attribute the stain to it.  Does not this refer to a louse of any part of the body? — No, to one of her head. Ammi of Wardina  citing R. Abbahu replied:  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: She  may attribute it to her son  or to her husband.  [Now the attribution] to her son is quite reasonable since it is possible [that he was unmarried],  but how is this possible in the case of her husband?  — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: Where, for instance, the woman entered the bridal chamber but had no intercourse.  R. Nahman replied:  Like the blood of the arteries. An objection was raised: It once happened that R. Meir attributed it