A woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina [beit haturpa], i.e., a place where blood that originated in her vagina could be found, becomes ritually impure, as there is a concern that it originated in the uterus and is menstrual blood. And if it was discovered on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure, as it certainly did not originate in the uterus. If the stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side she is ritually pure, and if it was on the sides, either from here, i.e., on the front of her leg or foot, or from there, i.e., on the back of her leg or foot, she is also ritually pure, as blood from the uterus could not have reached there. In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there; if it was from the belt and above she is ritually pure. In a case where she saw the stain on the end of the sleeve of the robe, if the sleeve can reach adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure; and if not, i.e., if the stain is in a place on the sleeve that does not reach adjacent to the vagina, she is ritually pure. If it was a robe which she would remove and with which she would cover herself at night, wherever on the robe that the stain is found, the stain renders her ritually impure, due to the fact that the robe moves while the woman is asleep and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. And likewise with regard to a kerchief [bapoleyos], no matter where the blood is found on the kerchief, the woman is impure.
And a woman who discovers a blood stain on her body or her garment may attribute its existence to any matter to which she can attribute it: If she slaughtered a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird; or if she was occupied with the removal of blood stains from the garments of other women or from her own garment, from any source, such as blood that originated from a wound elsewhere on her body or even her own menstrual blood from a prior menstrual cycle; or if she sat alongside others who were occupied with removing blood stains; or if she killed a louse; in all of these cases, that woman may attribute the blood stain to it.How large a stain may a woman attribute to a louse? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: It can be up to the area of a split bean. And she may attribute the stain to a louse even if she does not remember that she killed it. And she may attribute the blood stain to her son or to her husband in a case where one of them is near her and has a wound. Furthermore, if the woman herself has a wound, even if the wound scabbed over and is no longer bleeding, but it can reopen and bleed, that woman may attribute the blood stain to that wound.
There was an incident involving one woman who came before Rabbi Akiva. She said to him: I saw a blood stain. Rabbi Akiva said to her: Perhaps there was a wound on your body? She said to him: Yes, there was a wound and it healed. He said to her: Was it perhaps a wound that could reopen and bleed? She said to him: Yes it was. And Rabbi Akiva deemed her ritually pure. Rabbi Akiva saw his students looking at each other, wondering why he ruled leniently in this case. Rabbi Akiva said to them: What in this matter is difficult in your eyes? The reason I ruled this way is that the Sages did not state the matter of the impurity of blood stains in order to be stringent; rather, they instituted this impurity in order to be lenient, as it is stated: “And if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh shall be blood” (Leviticus 15:19), from which it is derived that by Torah law, “blood” deems her impure, but not a stain. Impurity from a blood stain was instituted by the Sages, and they rule leniently in any case where the stain can be attributed to another source.
With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round the woman is ritually pure, as an examination to determine whether a woman is menstruating would not leave a round stain. If the stain is elongated the woman is ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok.
הָרוֹאָה כֶתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא כְנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה, טְהוֹרָה. עַל עֲקֵבָהּ וְעַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ, טְמֵאָה. עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ, מִבִּפְנִים, טְמֵאָה. מִבַּחוּץ, טְהוֹרָה. וְעַל הַצְּדָדִין מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן, טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל חֲלוּקָהּ, מִן הַחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, טְמֵאָה. מִן הַחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל בֵּית יָד שֶׁל חָלוּק, אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם לָאו, טְהוֹרָה. הָיְתָה פוֹשַׁטְתּוֹ וּמִתְכַּסָּה בוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בוֹ כֶתֶם, טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חוֹזֵר. וְכֵן בַּפַּלְיוֹם:
A woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina [beit haturpa], i.e., a place where blood that originated in her vagina could be found, becomes ritually impure, as there is a concern that it originated in the uterus and is menstrual blood. And if it was discovered on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure, as it certainly did not originate in the uterus. If the stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side she is ritually pure, and if it was on the sides, either from here, i.e., on the front of her leg or foot, or from there, i.e., on the back of her leg or foot, she is also ritually pure, as blood from the uterus could not have reached there. In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there; if it was from the belt and above she is ritually pure. In a case where she saw the stain on the end of the sleeve of the robe, if the sleeve can reach adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure; and if not, i.e., if the stain is in a place on the sleeve that does not reach adjacent to the vagina, she is ritually pure. If it was a robe which she would remove and with which she would cover herself at night, wherever on the robe that the stain is found, the stain renders her ritually impure, due to the fact that the robe moves while the woman is asleep and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. And likewise with regard to a kerchief [bapoleyos], no matter where the blood is found on the kerchief, the woman is impure.
וְתוֹלָה בְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת. שָׁחֲטָה בְהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, נִתְעַסְּקָה בִכְתָמִים אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה בְצַד הָעֲסוּקִים בָּהֶן, הָרְגָה מַאֲכֹלֶת, הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָהּ. עַד כַּמָּה הִיא תוֹלָה. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, עַד כַּגְּרִיס שֶׁל פּוֹל, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָרְגָה. וְתוֹלָה בִבְנָהּ אוֹ בְּבַעְלָהּ. אִם יֶשׁ בָּהּ מַכָּה וְהִיא יְכוֹלָה לְהִגָּלַע וּלְהוֹצִיא דָם, הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָהּ:
And a woman who discovers a blood stain on her body or her garment may attribute its existence to any matter to which she can attribute it: If she slaughtered a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird; or if she was occupied with the removal of blood stains from the garments of other women or from her own garment, from any source, such as blood that originated from a wound elsewhere on her body or even her own menstrual blood from a prior menstrual cycle; or if she sat alongside others who were occupied with removing blood stains; or if she killed a louse; in all of these cases, that woman may attribute the blood stain to it. How large a stain may a woman attribute to a louse? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: It can be up to the area of a split bean. And she may attribute the stain to a louse even if she does not remember that she killed it. And she may attribute the blood stain to her son or to her husband in a case where one of them is near her and has a wound. Furthermore, if the woman herself has a wound, even if the wound scabbed over and is no longer bleeding, but it can reopen and bleed, that woman may attribute the blood stain to that wound.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁבָּאת לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמְרָה לוֹ, רָאִיתִי כָתֶם. אָמַר לָהּ, שֶׁמָּא מַכָּה הָיְתָה בִיךְ. אָמְרָה לוֹ, הֵן, וְחָיְתָה. אָמַר לָהּ, שֶׁמָּא יְכוֹלָה לְהִגָּלַע וּלְהוֹצִיא דָם. אָמְרָה לוֹ, הֵן. וְטִהֲרָהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רָאָה תַלְמִידָיו מִסְתַּכְּלִין זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶם, מַה הַדָּבָר קָשֶׁה בְעֵינֵיכֶם. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הַדָּבָר לְהַחְמִיר אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו), וְאִשָּׁה כִּי תִהְיֶה זָבָה דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ, דָּם וְלֹא כָתֶם:
There was an incident involving one woman who came before Rabbi Akiva. She said to him: I saw a blood stain. Rabbi Akiva said to her: Perhaps there was a wound on your body? She said to him: Yes, there was a wound and it healed. He said to her: Was it perhaps a wound that could reopen and bleed? She said to him: Yes it was. And Rabbi Akiva deemed her ritually pure. Rabbi Akiva saw his students looking at each other, wondering why he ruled leniently in this case. Rabbi Akiva said to them: What in this matter is difficult in your eyes? The reason I ruled this way is that the Sages did not state the matter of the impurity of blood stains in order to be stringent; rather, they instituted this impurity in order to be lenient, as it is stated: “And if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh shall be blood” (Leviticus 15:19), from which it is derived that by Torah law, “blood” deems her impure, but not a stain. Impurity from a blood stain was instituted by the Sages, and they rule leniently in any case where the stain can be attributed to another source.
עֵד שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן תַּחַת הַכַּר וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם, עָגֹל, טָהוֹר. מָשׁוּךְ, טָמֵא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי צָדוֹק:
With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round the woman is ritually pure, as an examination to determine whether a woman is menstruating would not leave a round stain. If the stain is elongated the woman is ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok.