Previous daf

1)

(a) If the reason that a bloodstain on the woman's heel is Tamei, is because sometimes, it touches her womb, then why is a bloodstain on the tip of her toe, which does *not*, Tamei?

(b) How can we declare the woman Tamei because the toe must have touched the heel (which had previously touched the womb - but we do not establish Tumah from one location to the other (i.e. via a third agent, in this case, the heel)?
The proof for this is from a woman who has a wound on her neck, where we assume that she probably leaned forward, and the blood from her neck dripped onto her body in the vicinity of the womb - and declare her Tahor. Whereas, when she has a wound on her shoulder, we do *not*, in similar fashion, assume that she probably touched it with her hand, and then conveyed the blood to the vicinity of the womb via her hand - and we declare her Temei'ah.

(c) When we declare a woman who finds blood on the back of her hands, Temei'ah, it is not because we assume that she conveyed the blood there from her body with the other hand (which would be establishing Tum'ah from one location to the other), but that the hand, which is more active than other part of the body, touches the body at all sorts of angles - so that it is perfectly feasible, that she touched her womb with the back of her hand.

(a) Up to the joint called 'Chavak' (the nerve which joins the calf to the thigh), is considered the inside of the calf.

(b) The Chavak itself has the Din of the inside of the calf. Consequently, if she finds blood there, she will be Temei'ah.

(c) The Beraisa, which declares a woman who finds blood on her flesh, Temei'ah, speaks when there is a line of blood in the shape of a strap - going down her leg.

(a) Rebbi Yanai instructed the woman to walk backwards and forwards past the weaving-loom to see if the location of her womb came close enough to the section of the loom for it to have touched. in which case, that would account for the blood being there.

(b) We have learnt earlier that, according to the Rabbanan of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (in the case of the man and the cloak), we do not test him, to see whether if, when he puts on the cloak again, it touches the Tum'os beside him We just assume that it *did* touch the first time. However, the Gemara rejects that Kashya, on the grounds that there, the Rabbanan declined to make the test 'le'Chumra', whereas in the case of Rebbi Yanai, not to have made the test, would have constituted a 'Kula', since without the test, she would be Tehorah, and he initiated it in order to verify her Tum'ah.

(a) If the bloodstain is discovered in the area of the Beis Turfah of the tall one, then it could have come from either woman, which is why both of them are indeed Tamei.

(b) If however, the stain does not reach the area of the Beis Turfah of the tall one, then the small woman is Temei'ah, and the tall one is Tehorah, since the stain could only have come from the short woman.

(c)&(d) The borrower is not obligated to clean the bloodstained garment, in spite of the fact that the owner claims to have washed it. This is because, since the owner has no proof that she washed the garment properly, the borrower can argue that she does not believe her when she calims that she *did*.
However, as far as Tum'ah goes, the owner is believed to say that she washed it properly, and she is therefore Tehorah, whilst the borrower is Temei'ah.

5)

(a) If two women find two Sela'im of blood , one on each of their bodies, after dealing with a bird which contains only one Sela, then they are both Temei'os.

(b) If a woman discovers a bloodstain on her clothes, after having walked down a street of butchers, then she is Tehorah, even if she discovers the bloodstain on the bottom garment.

(c) If the woman did not walk down a street of butchers (or go anywhere else or do anything which might have caused the bloodstain), then she is Temei'ah, even if the bloodstain is discovered on the top garment.

(a) Anything which a woman does or anywhere that she goes, which is likely to leave a bloodstain on her, or on her clothes, will allow us to declare her Tehorah, should a bloodstain subsequently be found on her clothes, because we will be able to say that the blood did not come from her body, but from the thing that she did or the place that she went.
Rebbi Meir relied on a sort of bandage, which contained meat, and Rebbi on the sap of a wild-fig tree, to declare the woman Tehorah.

(b) The maximum size bloodstain that we would ascribe to a louse, according to Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, would be a 'ki'Geris' of a bean. He disagrees with the Tana Kama, who requires the woman to have killed the louse, before we can rely on it to declare her Tehorah. According to him, we will rely on the louse to declare her Tehorah, even if she did not actually kill one.

(c) When the Tana allows the woman to rely on her husband or on her son, he is referring to a husband or a son who have a wound, and he is contending with the possibility that she may have touched him on the location of the wound - in which case, the blood is not from her, and she will remain Tehorah.

(d) Rebbi Akiva permitted a woman to rely even on a wound that had already closed, but could easily open and emit blood, since there is still a strong likelihood that the blood came from there.

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, an elongated bloodstain found on a woman's Eid renders her Temei'ah, whilst a round one does not - because a round bloodstain is more likely to have come from a louse (provided it is not larger than the size of a Geris).

(b) We will only rely on the blood having come from the people who deal with bloodstains or from the animals in the butcheries, if she definitely sat next to the former, or walked down the latter, but not if she only *may* have done so.

(c) What Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel meant was that, according to him, there was no end to the stringency. Why?
Because unless the woman knew that she actually killed a louse, she would be Temei'ah. Now every bed was full of bloodstains because of the lice - so in all likelihood, the blood which she sees, is that of a louse, yet she is unable to rely on that to declare her Tehorah.
On the other hand, there is no end to the Rabbanan's leniency, because, whether she killed a louse or not, she can rely on the blood being that of a louse, and even if it is more than a ke'Geris.

(d) Therefore, the opinion of Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos appear to be something of a compromise. Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel agrees with the Chachamim of Rabban Gamliel who say that, whether she killed a louse or not, we rely on the blood that she finds being from a louse. However, he restricts that to a maximum volume of a ke'Geris, but not more, since it is unusual for a louse to contain more blood than that.

(a) The Rabbanan only permit a bloodstain up to the size of a Sela (coin). (In fact, their leniency, over and above that of Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, only extends to the difference between a ke'Geris and the size of a Sela).

(b) The fact that a Pishpesh is square means that if a woman finds a square-shaped bloodstain - even if it is more than a ke'Geris, then she is Tehorah.
That its taste resembles its smell concerns the Mishnah in Terumos, which rules that if someone feels the taste of a Pishpesh in his mouth, then, even if he is eating Terumah (which it is forbidden to waste), he is obligated to spit it out. How does he recognize the taste of a Pishpesh? Because he recognizes its smell. And how does he know what it smells like? Because Chazal have taught us that anybody who rolls a Pishpesh in his hands, adopts its smell.

(c) Rav Ashi says that a city which has Chazeirim need not contend with bloodstains of Nidus. Why not?
Because the Chazeirim eat a lot of Sheratzim, on account of which they are constantly squirting blood.

(a) Rav Chisda maintains that the 'Ad ki'Geris' of Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos means exactly a ki'Geris, because, the Gemara wants to say, he holds 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Ch'lal'; Rav Huna, who says that Rebbi Chanina means specifically less than a ke'Geris, holds that 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chlal'.

(b) Rav Huna holds like the Gemara in Chullin, which says, that because we are not certain whether 'ad ve'Ad bi'Ch'lal' or 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Ch'lal', we always go le'Chumra;And here, it is a Chumra to say 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Ch'lal' - not to rely on a stain the size of a ke'Geris in order to declare the woman Temei'ah.

(c) Rav Chisda might well agree with the above ruling in principle. However, the one exception is here, since the ki'Geris of bloodstains is purely mi'de'Rabbanan, and in cases of pure de'Rabbanan, we always lean to the lenient side in matters of doubt.