כָּאן – לְמַפְרֵעַ, כָּאן – לְהַבָּא.

Here, in the latter clause of the baraita , when she may attribute the stain to a woman who had seen a blood stain, it is referring to rendering that woman impure retroactively with regard to the status of pure items that she had already touched before the stain was found on the garment she borrowed. This attribution of the blood stain to the woman who was already impure due to seeing a blood stain does not harm her impure status in any way, as items she had previously touched were already considered impure. There, in the beginning of the baraita , where the ruling is that the lender may not attribute the blood stain to a woman who was already impure, it is referring to her own status with regard to the future. With regard to the future, one may not attribute the stain to woman who had already seen a blood stain, as this attribution would ruin that woman’s counting of pure days.

מִכָּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אֲמַר רָבִינָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: הִשְׁאִילָה חֲלוּקָהּ לְנָכְרִית – בַּעֲלַת כֶּתֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָּהּ.

The Gemara returns to the objection: The baraita has been resolved, but in any case everyone agrees that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel she may attribute the stain to a woman who had previously seen a blood stain. This presents a difficulty to the answer of Rabbi Yehuda bar Livai, i.e., that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one may not attribute the blood stain in such a case. Ravina said: It is not difficult, as this is what the baraita is saying in its latter clause: If she loaned her garment to a gentile woman, then with regard to defining the lender as one who had seen a blood stain, the lender may attribute the stain to the gentile woman. If so, it cannot be inferred from the baraita that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel one may attribute a blood stain to another woman who was already impure due to a blood stain.

וְהָא ״אוֹ לְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל הַכֶּתֶם״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אוֹ לְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טוֹהַר – בַּעֲלַת כֶּתֶם תּוֹלָה בָּהּ.

The Gemara raises an objection: But the tanna of the baraita teaches: Or to a woman who was observing days of impurity due to having seen a blood stain, i.e., it mentions another woman who was already impure due to having seen a blood stain. Ravina explains that this is what the tanna is saying: If she loaned the garment to a gentile woman or to a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, then with regard to defining the lender as a woman who saw a blood stain, she may attribute the stain to the gentile or to the woman observing the days of ritually pure blood, and the lender remains pure.

״שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁלָּבְשׁוּ כו׳ שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה״ כו׳: אֲמַר רַב מַתָּנָה: מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה – דִּכְתִיב ״וְנִקָּתָה לָאָרֶץ תֵּשֵׁב״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה לָאָרֶץ – נִקְּתָה.

§ The mishna teaches: In a case of three women who wore one garment, etc. If they sat on a stone bench or on the bench of a bathhouse, Rabbi Neḥemya deems all three women ritually pure, as Rabbi Neḥemya would say: Any item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity is not susceptible to ritual impurity due to blood stains. The Gemara clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya. Rav Mattana says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya? As it is written: “And her gates shall lament and mourn; and clean she shall sit upon the ground” (Isaiah 3:26). This teaches that once she sits on the ground, which is not susceptible to ritual impurity, she shall be clean, i.e., pure.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מְטַהֵר הָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אֲפִילּוּ בַּאֲחוֹרֵי כְּלֵי חֶרֶס. פְּשִׁיטָא!

Rav Huna says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Rabbi Neḥemya would deem her ritually pure even if she sat on the exterior of an inverted earthenware vessel. Since an earthenware vessel becomes impure only if an impure item enters its airspace, its exterior is not susceptible to ritual impurity and therefore it does not render a woman who sees a blood stain on it ritually impure. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Rabbi Neḥemya himself said that she does not become impure if a blood stain is found on an item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity. What does Rabbi Ḥanina add to that statement?

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִיגְזוֹר גַּבּוֹ אַטּוּ תּוֹכוֹ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

The Gemara answers: This observation is necessary, lest you say: Let the Sages decree that she becomes impure from a blood stain found on the exterior of an earthenware vessel, due to its similarity to a blood stain found on the interior, which would render her impure. Therefore, Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us that there is no such decree.

אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: מְטַהֵר הָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה בְּמַטְלָנִיּוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ, דְּלָא חַזְיָין לָא לַעֲנִיִּים וְלָא לַעֲשִׁירִים.

Abaye says: Rabbi Neḥemya would deem her ritually pure if she saw blood stains on small rags that do not have an area of three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, as these rags are suitable for use neither for the poor nor for the wealthy.

דְּרַשׁ רַב חִיָּיא בַּר רַב מַתָּנָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אַבָּא תְּנֵי מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְטִמְּאוּם, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה?!

Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Mattana taught in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Mattana: Father teaches the following baraita : An incident of this kind came before the Sages, involving two women who found a blood stain on an item that was not susceptible to ritual impurity, and the Sages deemed both women ritually impure, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Neḥemya. And yet you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya?

מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ טוֹחֲנוֹת בְּרֵחַיִים שֶׁל יָד, וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת הַפְּנִימִית – שְׁתֵּיהֶן טְמֵאוֹת, תַּחַת הַחִיצוֹנָה – הַחִיצוֹנָה טְמֵאָה, וְהַפְּנִימִית טְהוֹרָה, בֵּינְתַיִם – שְׁתֵּיהֶן טְמֵאוֹת.

The Gemara inquires: What is that incident in question? As it is taught in a baraita : With regard to two women who were grinding with a hand mill and were standing next to each other, and blood was found beneath the woman on the inside, i.e., the woman standing closest to the mill, they are both ritually impure. The reason is that the woman standing further away pushes in to get closer to the mill, and therefore the blood stain could be from either of them. But if blood was found beneath the woman on the outside, i.e., the woman standing further from the mill, the woman on the outside is impure and the woman on the inside is pure. If the blood was found between them, they are both impure.

הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְנִמְצָא דָּם עַל שְׂפָתָהּ שֶׁל אַמְבָּטִי, וְעַל עָלֶה שֶׁל זַיִת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּסִּיקוֹת אֶת הַתַּנּוּר, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים – וְטִמְּאוּם.

The baraita continues: There was an incident and blood was found on the edge of a bathtub, and in another case a blood stain was found on an olive leaf at the time that the women were kindling the oven. And the incident came before the Sages and they deemed both women ritually impure. Since an olive leaf is not susceptible to ritual impurity, this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב מְטַמֵּא, וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְטַהֵר, וְהוֹרוּ חֲכָמִים כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav Mattana answered: It is a dispute between tanna’im whether or not the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya. As it is taught in a baraita : If a blood stain is found on an item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, Rabbi Ya’akov deems her impure, but Rabbi Neḥemya deems her pure. And the Sages ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya.

מתני׳ שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ יְשֵׁנוֹת בְּמִטָּה אַחַת, וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן – כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. בָּדְקָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצֵאת טְמֵאָה – הִיא טְמֵאָה וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן טְהוֹרוֹת. וְתוֹלוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ, וְאִם לֹא הָיוּ רְאוּיִן לִרְאוֹת – רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ הֵן רְאוּיוֹת.

In a case of three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was discovered beneath one of them, all of them are ritually impure. If when the blood was discovered one of them examined herself and discovered that she was impure due to menstruation, she is impure and the other two are pure. And if none of them examined themselves, or if all of them examined themselves and were pure, they attribute the blood to each other, i.e., if one of them is unfit to menstruate, e.g., she is pregnant, she may attribute the blood to the other women who are fit to menstruate. And if all three women were not fit to see the flow of blood, e.g., they each belonged to one of the categories listed in the mishna on 7a, one considers them as though they were fit, and all three are impure, because the blood must have originated from one of them.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: וְהוּא שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּשִׁיעוּר וֶסֶת.

The mishna teaches that if one of the women examined herself when the blood was discovered and found that she was impure due to menstruation, she is impure and the other two are pure. In this regard, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The other two women may attribute the blood to the one who examined herself only when she examined herself within the brief period of time needed for the onset of menstruation. But if she checked herself after this time, although she is impure, the other women are also impure, due to uncertainty.

סְבַר לָהּ כְּבַר פַּדָּא, דַּאֲמַר: כָּל שֶׁבַּעְלָהּ בְּחַטָּאת – טָהֳרוֹתֶיהָ טְמֵאוֹת,

The Gemara explains: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of bar Padda, who said: There are three time periods with regard to defining a woman’s ritual-purity status if she sees blood after engaging in intercourse. The shortest is the period of time required for the onset of menstruation, i.e., for menstrual bleeding to begin. The next shortest is the time it would take the woman to get out of bed after intercourse and wash her private parts. The longest period is any time longer than that. If a woman finds blood after intercourse within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, she must have been impure during intercourse. With regard to any woman whose husband would be liable to bring a sin offering if he had engaged in intercourse with her, because she found the blood within that short period, if she had not been engaging in intercourse, but rather had been preparing food in a state of ritual purity, and then she found blood within that short period, all the pure items that she touched are ritually impure.

בַּעְלָהּ בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי – טָהֳרוֹתֶיהָ תְּלוּיוֹת, בַּעְלָהּ פָּטוּר – טָהֳרוֹתֶיהָ טְהוֹרוֹת.

By contrast, with regard to any woman whose husband would be liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he had engaged in intercourse with her, as it is uncertain whether he violated a transgression for which he would be liable to bring a sin offering, if she had not been engaging in intercourse, but rather had been preparing food in a state of ritual purity and then found blood within that same time period, the status of all the pure items she touched is suspended, as their status is uncertain. They are not burned but they may not be eaten either. Finally, with regard to any woman whose husband would be exempt from bringing any offering, i.e., where she finds blood after a longer time period, if she had not been engaging in intercourse, but rather had been preparing food in a state of ritual purity, and then found the blood after a longer time period, all the pure items she touched remain pure.

וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּעְלָהּ בְּחַטָּאת – טָהֳרוֹתֶיהָ תְּלוּיוֹת.

And Rabbi Oshaya says: There is no connection between her husband’s obligation to bring an offering and the ritual-purity status of the items she handled. Even if her husband is liable to bring a sin offering, i.e., when she discovered the blood within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, the status of all the pure items she touched before she discovered the blood is suspended, as their status is uncertain.

בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם – אֵימַר שַׁמָּשׁ עַכְּבֵיהּ לַדָּם [אֲבָל] הָכָא – אִם אִיתָא דְּהָוֵי דָּם מַאן עַכְּבֵיהּ?

Rabbi Oshaya explains his reasoning. Granted, there, in the case of intercourse, where the husband must bring an offering, one can say that the male organ prevented the blood from emerging from her body, and therefore it is clear that she was impure beforehand. But here, in the case of preparing food in a state of ritual purity, if it is so that there was blood coming out of her while she was preparing the food, what prevented the blood from emerging from her body?

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מָשָׁל דְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה – לְיֶלֶד וְזָקֵן שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ – יֶלֶד שׁוֹהֶא לָבֹא, נִכְנְסוּ לָעִיר – יֶלֶד מְמַהֵר לָבֹא. וְאָמַר אַבַּיֵי: מָשָׁל דְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה – לְאָדָם שֶׁנּוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בָּעַיִן, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶצְבַּע בָּעַיִן – דִּמְעָה שׁוֹהָא לָבֹא, נָטַל הָאֶצְבַּע – דִּמְעָה מְמַהֶרֶת לָבֹא.

Rabbi Yirmeya says a parable in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: To what is this matter comparable? To a child and an old man who are walking along the road. As long as they are on the road, the child delays his arrival, i.e., he walks at the pace of the old man. But once they enter the city, the child hastens his arrival, and runs on ahead. Similarly, as soon as the couple has finished engaging in intercourse, the blood comes quickly, but the blood is hindered from coming out during intercourse. And Abaye also says a parable in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: To what is this matter comparable? To a man who puts his finger in his eye. As long as his finger is in his eye, the tears delay their arrival and remain in the eye. But as soon as he has removed his finger the tears hasten their arrival.

״וְתוֹלוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד תּוֹלוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ. עוּבָּרָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ עוּבָּרָה – תּוֹלָה עוּבָּרָה בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ עוּבָּרָה,

§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was discovered beneath one of them, that if one of them is unfit to menstruate they attribute the blood to each other, i.e., to the women who are fit to menstruate. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita : How do they attribute the blood to one another? If one of the women is pregnant and one is not pregnant, the pregnant woman may attribute the blood to the woman who is not pregnant.

מֵנִיקָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מֵנִיקָה – תּוֹלָה מֵנִיקָה בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ מֵנִיקָה, זְקֵנָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ זְקֵנָה – תּוֹלָה זְקֵנָה בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ זְקֵנָה, בְּתוּלָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּתוּלָה – תּוֹלָה בְּתוּלָה בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּתוּלָה.

If one of the women is nursing and the other is not nursing, the nursing woman may attribute the blood to the woman who is not nursing. If one of the women is old and no longer experiences bleeding regularly, and the other one is not old, the old woman may attribute the blood to the woman who is not old. Likewise, if one of the women is a virgin, in this context, one who has not yet experienced bleeding due to her youth, and the other woman is not a virgin, in this context, one who has experienced bleeding, the virgin may attribute the blood to the woman who is not a virgin.

הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוּבָּרוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן מֵנִיקוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן זְקֵנוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּתוּלוֹת – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ, לֹא הָיוּ רְאוּיוֹת לִרְאוֹת – רוֹאִין

The baraita continues: If both women are pregnant, or both women are nursing, or both women are old, or both women are virgins, in this case the halakha is as we learned in the mishna: If both women were not fit to see menstrual blood, and yet blood is found beneath them on the bed, one considers them