Niddah

Our Rabbis taught: Where a woman put on three shirts  that she had previously examined  [and then found blood on one of them]. if she is in a position to attribute [the blood to an external source]  she may do so even though [the blood was found] on the lowest shirt, but if she is not in a position to attribute [it to an external cause]  she may not do so even though [the blood was found] on the uppermost shirt. How so? If she passed through a butchers' market she may attribute the blood to it even though it was found on the lowest shirt, but if she did not pass through a butchers' market she may not attribute the blood to it even if it was found on the uppermost. MISHNAH. [A WOMAN] MAY ATTRIBUTE [A BLOODSTAIN] TO ANY [EXTERNAL] CAUSE TO WHICH SHE CAN POSSIBLY ATTRIBUTE IT.  IF [FOR INSTANCE] SHE HAD SLAIN A DOMESTIC BEAST, A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD, IF SHE WAS HANDLING BLOODSTAINS OR SAT BESIDE THOSE WHO HANDLED THEM. OR IF SHE KILLED A LOUSE. SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE THE BLOODSTAIN TO IT. HOW LARGE A STAIN MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A LOUSE?  R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS REPLIED: ONE UP TO THE SIZE  OF A SPLIT BEAN; [AND IT MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A LOUSE] EVEN THOUGH SHE DID NOT KILL IT.  SHE MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE IT TO HER SON OR TO HER HUSBAND.  IF SHE HERSELF HAD A WOUND THAT  COULD OPEN AGAIN AND BLEED SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE IT TO IT. A WOMAN ONCE CAME TO R. AKIBA AND SAID TO HIM: I HAVE OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN'. 'HAD YOU PERHAPS', HE SAID TO HER. 'A WOUND?' YES'. SHE REPLIED, 'BUT IT HAS HEALED'. IS IT POSSIBLE HE AGAIN ASKED HER, THAT IT COULD OPEN AGAIN AND BLEED?' 'YES', SHE REPLIED; AND R. AKIBA DECLARED HER CLEAN. OBSERVING THAT HIS DISCIPLES LOOKED AT EACH OTHER IN ASTONISHMENT. HE SAID TO THEM, 'WHY DO YOU FIND THIS DIFFICULT, SEEING THAT THE SAGES DID NOT LAY DOWN THE RULE  IN ORDER TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS BUT RATHER TO RELAX THEM, FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE, AND HER ISSUE IN HER FLESH BE BLOOD.  ONLY BLOOD  BUT NOT A BLOODSTAIN. IF ON A TESTING RAG THAT WAS PLACED UNDER A PILLOW SOME BLOOD WAS FOUND, IF THE STAIN IS ROUND IT IS CLEAN BUT IF IT IS ELONGATED IT IS UNCLEAN; SO R. ELIEZER SON OF R. ZADOK. GEMARA. Thus we have here  learnt what our Rabbis taught elsewhere: It once happened that R. Meir attributed it to collyrium, and Rabbi attributed it to the sap of a sycamore. OR SAT. Only where SHE SAT  but not [where she believes that] she did not sit.  Thus  we have here learnt what our Rabbis taught elsewhere: If a woman passed through a butchers' market, and it is a matter of doubt whether any blood was or was not squirted on her she may attribute [any bloodstain on her to a possible contingency]; but if it is doubtful whether she did or did not pass the market she  is unclean. IF SHE KILLED A LOUSE. Only where SHE KILLED  but not where she did not kill any. Whose view then does our Mishnah  represent? — That of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For it was taught: If she killed a louse she may attribute a bloodstain to it, but if she did not kill any she may not so attribute it; so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. But the Sages ruled: In either case she may attribute the one to the other. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: According to my view there is no limit  and according to the view of my colleagues there is no end.  'According to my view there is no limit' since you could hardly find  a woman who could be regarded as clean for her husband, seeing that there is hardly  a bed that does not contain ever so many drops of louse blood.  'According to the view of my colleagues there is no end', since there is hardly  a woman who could be regarded as unclean for her husband, seeing that there is hardly a sheet on which there are not ever so many drops of blood;  but the view of R. Hanina b. Antigonus is more feasible than mine and theirs, for he has laid down, 'How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? One not bigger than the size of a split bean',  and we rule in agreement with his view.  But according to the Rabbis who ruled, SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE,  how large may be the stain?  — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: She may attribute it to a bed-bug even if it is as big as a lupine. Our Rabbis taught: A  bed-bug is of the same length and breadth and the taste of it is like its odour. Whosoever crushes it cannot help  smelling it. It was stated to be of 'the same length and breadth' in regard to bloodstains.  'The taste of it is like its odour' has been stated in regard to terumah.  For we have learnt: 'Or if he tasted the flavour of a bed-bug in his mouth he must spit it out.  But how could he know this?  Because 'the taste of it is like its odour'. But still, whence could he know this?  [Because] 'whosoever crushes it cannot help  smelling it'. R. Ashi ruled: In a town in which there are pigs there is no need to consider the possibility of menstrual bloodstains.  R. Nahman b. Isaac stated: The condition of  Dokereth  is  like that of a town in which there are pigs. HOW LARGE A STAIN MAY BE ATTRIBUTED etc. R. Huna explained: If the stain is equal in size to a split bean it may not be attributed to a louse; if it is smaller in size than a split bean it may be attributed to it. R. Hisda, however, explained: If it was of the same size as a split bean it may be attributed to it, but if it was bigger than the size of a split bean it may not be attributed to it. Must it be assumed that they  differ on the question whether UP TO' is meant to include the terminus,  R. Huna  holding the opinion that 'up to' does not include the terminus  while R. Hisda  holds that 'up to' is inclusive of the terminus?  — R. Huna can answer you: 'Up to' may sometimes include the terminus and sometimes exclude it, but in either case  the meaning must be one that leads to a restriction,  while R. Hisda can answer you: Elsewhere I agree with you  that we adopt a meaning that leads to a restriction and not one that leads to a relaxation, but here the meaning must be in agreement with a ruling of R. Abbahu, R. Abbahu having ruled: All prescribed minima of the Sages are intended to impose restrictions, except the prescribed size of a split bean in the case of bloodstains which is intended to relax the law.  There are others who give this tradition  as an independent statement:  R. Huna ruled, A bloodstain of the size of a split bean is treated as one bigger than the size of a split bean;  while R. Hisda ruled, One of the size of a split bean is treated as one that is less than the size of a split bean;  but they differ on the interpretation of UP TO here, as has just been explained. An objection was raised: