Niddah

It was stated: If on the body of a woman  was found a stain of the size of a split bean plus some addition,  and to that addition clung a louse, R. Hanina ruled: She is unclean;  and R. Jannai ruled: She is clean.  'R. Hanina ruled: She is unclean', since she may attribute a stain to a louse only where the former is of the size of a split bean but not where it is of the size of a split bean plus. 'R. Jannai ruled: She is clean', since this restriction  applies only where no louse clings to the addition, but where a louse clings to it, it is quite evident that the addition is the blood of a louse, so that only a stain of the size of a split bean remains;  and since such a size may elsewhere  be attributed to a louse it may also here be so attributed. R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the ruling where a woman handled some blood of the bulk of a split bean but on her body was found a bloodstain of the size of a split bean and a little more? This question arises according to R. Hanina and it also arises according to R. Jannai. 'This question arises according to R. Hanina', since R. Hanina may have maintained his view there  that the woman was unclean, only because she did not handle any blood, but here, where she did handle some, she may well attribute [the stain to an extraneous cause].  or is it possible that, even according to R. Jannai who ruled  that she was clean, the ruling applies only where a louse clings to the stain, but where no louse clings to it, the stain may not be attributed to it? — Come and hear: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain; if she was handling a small quantity  she may not attribute to it a large stain. Now how is one to imagine the circumstances?  Would you not agree that they were of the same nature?  — No, this  might be a case, for instance, where she handled a quantity of blood of the bulk of a split bean while on her body was found a stain of the size of two split beans and a little more in excess.  But if so,  what was the need of mentioning it?  — It might have been presumed that one takes the part of the stain  that may be attributed to the blood of the bird  to be in the middle  so that there remains less than the prescribed minimum on either of its sides,  hence we were informed [that the stain cannot be attributed to it  at all]. Raba ruled: If one kind of material  was found upon a woman  she may attribute to it any kind of stain.  It was objected: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain!  — A case where she had handled the stuff is different.  There are some who say: Raba ruled, If a woman was handling one kind of material, she may attribute to it any kinds of stain.  It was objected: If she was handling red stuff she may not attribute to it a black stain!  — When Raba laid down his ruling he referred to a woman who was handling a hen which contains several kinds of blood. A WOMAN ONCE etc. But was it not taught: Seeing that the Sages did not lay down the rule in order to relax the law but rather to restrict it?  — Rabina replied: The meaning is that they did not lay down the rule to relax Pentateuchal laws,  but rather to add restrictions to them;  but the uncleanness of bloodstains is altogether a Rabbinical enactment. IF ON A TESTING RAG THAT WAS PLACED. The question was raised: Do the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok or not? — Come and hear: A long stain is counted  but scattered drops are not combined.  Now whose view does this represent? If it be suggested: That of R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok [the difficulty would arise:] Why was there need  for the combination, seeing that he ruled that even a stain that was only slightly elongated is unclean. Must we not then conclude that it represents the view of the Rabbis? Thus it follows, does it not, that they differ from his view? — No, this may indeed represent the view of R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok, for he laid down the law  in regard to a testing rag  but not in regard to a bloodstain. Come and hear  what Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok'. Now since the halachah had to be declared it follows that they  differ from him.  This is conclusive.