Niddah

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN ON HER BODY,  IF IT WAS NEAR THE PUDENDA SHE IS UNCLEAN  BUT IF IT WAS NOT NEAR THE PUDENDA SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF  IT WAS ON HER HEEL OR ON THE TIP OF HER GREAT TOE, SHE IS UNCLEAN.  ON HER THIGH OR ON HER FEET, IF ON THE INNER SIDE, SHE IS UNCLEAN; IF ON THEIR OUTER SIDE, SHE REMAINS CLEAN; AND IF ON THE FRONT AND BACK SIDES  SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF SHE OBSERVED IT ON HER SHIRT BELOW THE BELT, SHE IS UNCLEAN,  BUT IF ABOVE THE BELT, SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF SHE OBSERVED IT ON THE SLEEVE OF HER SHIRT, SHE IS UNCLEAN IF IT  CAN REACH AS LOW AS THE PUDENDA,  BUT IF IT CANNOT, SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF SHE TAKES IT OFF AND COVERS HERSELF WITH IT IN THE NIGHT, SHE IS UNCLEAN WHEREVER THE STAIN IS FOUND,  SINCE IT CAN TURN ABOUT.  AND THE SAME LAW  APPLIES TO A PALLIUM. GEMARA. Samuel ruled: If a woman examined the ground  and after sitting on it, found on it some blood, she remains clean, for it is said, In her flesh,  implying that she is not unclean unless she feels  in her flesh. But the expression  'in her flesh' is required for the deduction that she conveys uncleanness within  as without?  — If so,  Scripture could have said, 'In flesh', why then did it say' 'in her flesh'? It may, therefore, be deduced that she is not unclean 'unless she feels  in her flesh'. But still, is not the expression required for the deduction, 'In her flesh, but not within a sac or within a lump of flesh'?  — Both deductions may be made from it. Come and hear: If a woman while attending to her needs  observed a discharge of blood, R. Meir ruled: If she was standing at the time she is unclean,  but if she was then sitting she remains clean.  Now how is one to imagine the circumstance?  If she felt the discharge, why should she be clean where she was sitting? Consequently this must be a case where she did not feel a discharge, and yet it was taught, was it not, that she was unclean?  — This may in fact be a case where she did feel a discharge but  it might be assumed that the feeling was that of the ejection of the urine. When she stands, the urine might well return to the interior of her womb  and then carry out some blood with it, but if she sits,  she remains clean. Come and hear: If on a testing rag that was placed under a pillow some blood was found, it is regarded as clean if it  was round,  but if it was elongated it is unclean. Now how are we to understand the circumstances? If she felt a discharge, why should it be clean when round? Consequently it must be a case where she felt no discharge, and yet it was stated, was it not, that if it was elongated it is unclean?  — No, it may in fact be a case where  she felt the discharge, but it might be assumed that it was the feeling of the testing rag. Hence if it is elongated it must certainly have issued from her body.  but if it is round  it is clean. Come and hear: If a vestige of blood is found on his rag they are both unclean and are also under the obligation of bringing a sacrifice. If any blood is found on her rag immediately after their intercourse they are both unclean and are also under the obligation of bringing a sacrifice. If, however, any blood is found on her rag after a time they are both unclean by reason of the doubt but exempt from the sacrifice.  Now how are we to imagine the circumstance? If she has felt a discharge, why should they be exempt from the sacrifice where the blood is found after a time? Must it not then be a case where she did not feel any discharge, and yet it was taught, was it not, that 'if any blood is found on her rag immediately after their intercourse they are both unclean and are also under the obligation of bringing a sacrifice'?  — No, she may in fact have felt the discharge, but it might be assumed that it was the feeling of the attendant. Come and hear: You are thus in a position  to say that three forms of doubt appertain to a woman. A bloodstain on her body, concerning which there is doubt whether it is unclean and clean, is regarded as unclean;  on her shirt, when it is doubtful whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as clean;  and in regard to the laws of the uncleanness of contact and heset  you follow the majority. Now what is meant by 'you follow the majority'? Is it not that if on most days she is unclean  this is a cause of uncleanness  even when she felt no discharge?  — No, the meaning is that if on most days her observation of the blood is accompanied by a feeling of the discharge she is unclean since it might be assumed that she had felt it this time also but did not pay any attention to it. The Master said, 'A bloodstain on her body, concerning which there is doubt whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as unclean; on her shirt, when it is doubtful whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as clean'. How is one to understand the circumstances? If it  was below her belt, why, when on her shirt, is it regarded as clean seeing that we have learnt, BELOW THE BELT, SHE IS UNCLEAN; and if it was above her belt, why, when on her body is it regarded as unclean, seeing that we have learnt that if she observed blood on her body, IF IT WAS NOT NEAR THE PUDENDA, SHE REMAINS CLEAN? — If you wish I could reply that the stain was below the belt; and if you prefer I might reply that it was above the belt. 'If you wish I could reply that the stain was below the belt', in a case, for instance, where she passed through a butchers' market. If the stain was on her body it must have emanated from herself, for if it had emanated from an external source  it should have been found on her shirt; but if it is found on her shirt, it must have emanated from an external source,  for if it had emanated from herself it should have been found on her body. 'And if you prefer I might reply that it was above her belt', in a case, for instance, where she jumped backwards. If the stain is on her body it must undoubtedly have emanated from herself, for if it had emanated from an external source  it should have been found on her shirt; but if it is found on her shirt, it must have emanated from an external source,  for if it had emanated from herself, it should have been found on her body. At all events, it was stated, was it not, 'A bloodstain on her body, concerning which there is doubt whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as clean', presumably even if she did not feel any discharge?  Furthermore, we have learnt, IF A WOMAN OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN ON HER BODY. IF IT WAS NEAR THE PUDENDA, SHE IS UNCLEAN. Does not this imply even where she did not feel any discharge?  — R. Jeremiah of Difti replied: Samuel agrees that  she is unclean