Niddah

IF THREE WOMEN HAD WORN etc. FOR R. NEHEMIAH HAS etc. R. Mattenah stated: What is R. Nehemiah's reason? That it is written, And clean  she shall sit upon the ground,  provided she sat on the ground she is clean.  R. Huna citing R. Hanina stated: R. Nehemiah rules that they are clean if they sat even on the back of an earthenware vessel. But is not this obvious?  — It might have been presumed that a restriction shall be imposed on its back as a preventive measure against the possible relaxation of the law in regard to its inside,  hence we were informed that on the back of an earthenware vessel they are clean. Abaye stated: R. Nehemiah holds them to be clean if they sat on strips of cloth that were less than three by three fingerbreadths, since such are unsuitable for use either by the poor or the rich. R. Hiyya son of R. Mattenah citing Rab stated in his discourse: The halachah is in agreement with R. Nehemiah. Said R. Nahman to him: Abba  learnt, 'A case was once submitted to the Sages and they declared the woman concerned to be unclean' and you state, 'the halachah is in agreement with R. Nehemiah'? — What was that case? — The one concerning which it was taught: If two women were grinding with a hand mill and blood was found under the inner one,  both are unclean.  If it was found under the outer one,  the outer one is unclean  but the inner one remains clean.  If it was found between the two, both are unclean.  It once happened that blood was found on the edge of a bath,  and on an olive leaf while they were making a fire in an oven, and when the case was submitted to the Sages they declared them to be unclean.  This  is a point at issue between Tannas. For it was taught: R. Jacob  ruled that they were unclean and R. Nehemiah ruled that they were clean, and the Sages  ruled in agreement with R. Nehemiah. MISHNAH. IF THREE WOMEN SLEPT IN ONE BED AND BLOOD WAS FOUND UNDER ONE OF THEM, THEY ARE ALL UNCLEAN. IF ONE OF THEM EXAMINED HERSELF AND WAS FOUND TO BE UNCLEAN, SHE ALONE IS UNCLEAN WHILE THE TWO OTHERS ARE CLEAN. THEY MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO ONE ANOTHER.  AND IF THEY WERE NOT LIKELY  TO OBSERVE A DISCHARGE,  THEY MUST BE REGARDED AS THOUGH THEY WERE LIKELY TO OBSERVE ONE. GEMARA. Rab Judah citing Rab explained: But this  applies only where she examined herself immediately [after the discovery of the blood],  He is of the same opinion as Bar Pada who laid down: Whenever her husband is liable to a sin-offering,  her clean things  are  to be unclean;  where her husband is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering,  her clean things  are regarded as being in a suspended state of uncleanness;  and where her husband is exempt,  her clean things  remain clean. But R. Oshaia  ruled: Even where her husband is liable to a sin-offering,  her clean things are  deemed to be in a suspended state.  One can see the reason  there, since it might well be assumed that the waiter  had caused the obstruction of the blood; but, in this case,  if it were a fact that the blood was there,  what could have caused its obstruction?  R. Jeremiah observed: As to R. Oshaia's metaphor  to what may this be compared? To an old man and a child who were walking together on a road. While they are underway the child restrains his gait.  but after they enter the town  the child accelerates his pace.  Abaye on the other hand observed: As to the metaphor of R. Oshaia, to what may this be compared? To a man who puts his finger on his eye. While the finger is on the eye the tears are held back, but as soon as the finger is removed the tears quickly come forth. THEY MAY ALSO ATTRIBUTE THE BLOOD TO ONE ANOTHER. Our Rabbis taught: In what manner do they attribute it to one another? If one was a pregnant woman  and the other was not pregnant, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a nursing woman  and the other was not a nursing woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was an old woman  and the other was not an old woman, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If one was a virgin  and the other was no virgin, the former may attribute the blood to the latter. If both were pregnant, nursing, old or virgins — it is [a case like] this concerning which we have learnt, IF THEY WERE NOT LIKELY TO OBSERVE A DISCHARGE, THEY MUST BE REGARDED