Niddah

ON HER HEEL OR ON THE TIP OF HER GREAT TOE. SHE IS UNCLEAN etc. One can well concede that HER HEEL  is likely  to come in contact with that place,  but what is the reason for the uncleanness in the case of a stain on THE TIP OF HER GREAT TOE? And should you reply: It might sometimes touch her heel [the objection would arise]: Do we [as regards] uncleanness presume transfer from place to place? Was it not in fact taught: If she  had a wound on her neck in a position to which the blood stain might be attributed,  she may so attribute it;  if it was on her shoulder, in which case she cannot so attribute it,  she must not so attribute it; and we do not suggest that it is possible that she had taken it  with her hand and transferred it there?  — The fact rather is that THE TIP OF HER TOE is in a different category.  because [direct dropping of blood] might occur while she is walking. But do we not [as regards] uncleanness presume transfer from place to place? Was it not in fact taught: If it  was found on her finger joints.  she is unclean, because hands are active.  Now what is the reason?  Is it not this: That we assume that she had examined herself with one hand  and then touched it with her other hand?  — No, her hand is different  since all of it might come in direct contact  [with the menstrual source]. ON HER THIGH OR ON HER FEET, IF ON THEIR INNER SIDE etc. How far  ON THEIR INNER SIDE?  — The school of R. Jannai replied: As far as the place of hebek.  The question was asked: Is the place of the hebek.  regarded as the inner, or as the outer side? — Come and hear what R. Kattina learnt: As far as the place of the hebek, and the hebek itself is regarded as the inner side. R. Hiyya son of R. Iwya taught this  explicitly: The School of R. Jannai ruled, As far as the place of the hebek and the hebek itself is regarded as in the inner side. R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the ruling  where a bloodstain had the shape of a ring, of a straight line of drops,  or of a splash of drops.  or where it runs across the breadth of her thigh? — Come and hear: 'A bloodstain on her body concerning which there is doubt whether it is unclean or clean, is regarded as unclean'. Now does not 'on her body' imply stains of such shapes? — No, it might only refer to one that is shaped like a stripe. A woman once found blood on her web. When she came to R. Jannai  he told her to experiment by repeating  her forward and backward movements.  But was it not taught: No repetition [test is recognized] in questions of cleanness?  — We say that no repetition test is recognized only  where the law would thereby  be relaxed, but where it is thereby restricted we do recognize a test of repetition. IF SHE TAKES IT OFF etc. It was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose stated, In such a case  I gave a ruling in the city of Rome imposing a prohibition,  and when I came to the Sages of the South they said to me, 'You have given the right decision. Our Rabbis taught: Where a tall woman put on the shirt  of a short woman or if a short one put on the shirt  of a tall one, if [a blood stain]  corresponds to the position of the pudenda of the tall one, they are both unclean, but if it does not correspond to it,  the tall one is clean while the short one is unclean. Another Baraitha taught: If a woman examined her shirt  and then  lent it to her friend,  she is clean, but her friend may attribute it  to her. R. Shesheth explained: This  was learnt only in regard to the civil law,  but as regards the law of uncleanness the lender is clean while her friend is unclean.