Niddah

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN WHEN ATTENDING TO HER NEEDS  OBSERVED AN ISSUE OF BLOOD, R. MEIR RULED: IF SHE WAS STANDING SHE IS UNCLEAN  BUT IF SHE WAS SITTING SHE REMAINS CLEAN. R. JOSE RULED: IN EITHER CASE SHE REMAINS CLEAN. IF A MAN AND A WOMAN ATTENDED TO THEIR NEEDS  IN THE SAME BOWL AND BLOOD WAS FOUND ON THE WATER, R. JOSE  RULED THAT IT WAS CLEAN,  WHILE R. SIMEON RULED THAT IT WAS UNCLEAN, SINCE IT IS NOT USUAL FOR A MAN TO DISCHARGE BLOOD, BUT THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT BLOOD ISSUES FROM THE WOMAN. GEMARA. Wherein does the case where the woman WAS STANDING differ [from that of sitting]? [Obviously] in that we presume that the urine had returned to the source  and brought back blood with it. But then, even where SHE WAS SITTING why should it not also be assumed that the urine had returned to the source and brought back blood with it? — Samuel replied: The reference is to a woman who discharges in a gush.  But even where a discharge is gushing is it not possible that  the blood issued  after the water had ceased to flow?  — R. Abba replied. The reference is to a woman who sat on the rim of a bowl, discharging into the bowl, and blood was found within the bowl, [in which case it is obvious] that if the blood had issued after the water had ceased to flow it  should have been found on the rim of the bowl.  Samuel ruled or, as some say, Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose; and also R. Abba gave a ruling to Kala:  The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose. IF A MAN AND A WOMAN etc. The question was asked: Where both the man and the woman were standing.  what, pray tell me, is the ruling of  R. Meir?  Did R. Meir maintain his view  only where one doubt  is involved, but where a double doubt  is involved he does not hold the woman to be unclean, or is it possible that there is no difference? — Resh Lakish replied: His ruling  is the same in both. Whence is this  inferred? — Since it was not stated:  R. Meir and R. Jose  ruled that she remains clean'. If so,  [the difficulty arises:] Now that R. Meir holds the woman to be unclean where a double doubt is involved,  was there any need for his ruling  where only one doubt is involved?  — Yes, in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling  of R: Jose who laid down that the woman is clean even where only one doubt is involved. But, instead of disputing about such a case involving only one doubt in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling of R. Jose, why should they not dispute about a case involving a double doubt in order to inform you how far reaching is the ruling of R. Meir?  The power of a lenient view  is preferred.  R. Johanan, however, replied: R. Meir gave his ruling  only where one doubt is involved, but where a double doubt is involved  he did not maintain his view. But if so,  why was it not stated:  R. Meir and R. Jose  ruled that she remains clean? — This should indeed have been done,  but since he had just left R. Jose  he also began  With R. Jose. As to R. Jose, however, since he holds the woman clean where only one doubt is involved,  was there any need for his ruling where a double doubt is involved?  — As it might have been presumed that his ruling applied only ex post facto  but not ab initio,  we were informed  that the ruling applied even ab initio. It was taught in agreement with R. Johanan: If a man and a woman attended to their needs in the same bowl and blood was found on the water, R. Meir and R. Jose declared it clean and R. Simeon declared it unclean. The question was raised: Where a woman  was sitting,  what, pray tell me, is the ruling of  R. Simeon? Did R. Simeon maintain his view only where she is standing, since her passage is then compressed.  but not where she was sitting;  or is it possible that there is no difference? — Come and hear what was taught: If she was sitting she may attribute [any discharge of blood to an internal wound], but if she was standing she may not attribute [it to it]; so R. Meir. R. Jose ruled: In either case she may attribute [it to it]. R. Simeon ruled: In either case she may not attribute [it to it]. The question was raised: Where a man and a woman were sitting.  what, pray tell me, is the ruling of  R. Simeon? Did R. Simeon maintain his view only where the woman was standing, since her passage is then compressed,  or where she was sitting, since only one doubt is involved, but not where a double doubt is involved;  or is it possible that there is no difference? — Come and hear: Since R. Simeon ruled, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT BLOOD ISSUES FROM THE WOMAN,  no distinction is to be made between an issue when they  were standing and one when they were sitting. MISHNAH. IF SHE LENT HER SHIRT TO A GENTILE WOMAN OR TO A MENSTRUANT SHE MAY ATTRIBUTE A STAIN  TO EITHER.  IF THREE WOMEN HAD WORN THE SAME SHIRT OR HAD SAT ON THE SAME WOODEN BENCH AND SUBSEQUENTLY BLOOD WAS FOUND ON IT, ALL ARE REGARDED AS UNCLEAN.  IF THEY HAD SAT ON A STONE BENCH  OR ON THE PROJECTION WITHIN THE COLONNADE OF A BATH HOUSE,  R. NEHEMIAH RULES THAT THEY ARE CLEAN;  FOR R. NEHEMIAH HAS LAID DOWN: ANY THING THAT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO STAINS. GEMARA. Rab explained: The reference  is to a GENTILE WOMAN