Kommentar zu Niddah 8:10

הרואה כתם. כנגד בית התורפה (A woman who sees a bloodstain, corresponding to her pudenda) – place of nakedness/lewdness..

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with a woman who finds a bloodstain on her body or her clothing. Does she have to be concerned that it is menstrual blood and therefore she (and the cloak) is impure?

טמאה - for one cans ay that the blood from that place fell.

If a woman observed a bloodstain on her body: If it was opposite her genital area she is unclean; But if it was not near the genital are she remains clean. If she finds the stain on her body close to her genital region or opposite this area, it is likely to be menstrual and she is impure. If the stain is not near there, then she might still be impure, but it will depend on where it is found, as we shall see now.

על עקבה – that at times that by chance and it touched that place.

If it was on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, she is unclean. This section explains what is also considered opposite her genital area. Her heels and the tips of her large toe are both opposite the genitals because she might sit cross-legged with her heels under her body.

ועל ראש גודלה – that while she stepped, it happened to be that the big toe that is on her foot was under that place and blood dripped upon it.

On her thigh or on her feet: If on the inner side, she is unclean; If on their outer side, she remains clean. And if on the front and back sides she remains clean. If on the inner sides of her feet or thighs, it is possible that the blood is menstrual. Therefore, she is impure. However, if it is on the outer sides or on the front or back, it can be assumed to be from elsewhere and she is clean.

על שוקה ועל פרסותיה מבפנים טמאה (on her thigh or on her foot) – when a person stands and fastens his legs and thighs one to the other, all that is attached one with the other from them is called “on the inside.”

If she observed it on her garment: Below the belt, she is unclean, But if above the belt, she remains clean. The rest of the mishnah is concerned with blood found on her garment. If it is below the belt, then it is possibly menstrual blood and she is unclean. But if above the belt, she is clean.

מבחוץ – from here and from there.

If she observed it on the sleeve of her shirt: If it can reach as low as her genital area, she is unclean, But if it cannot, she remains clean. If the blood was on the sleeve, we are concerned that it is menstrual only if the sleeve can reach down past her waist.

ועל הצדדין – behind the thigh all of their height corresponding to the ankle, and in front of it all its high corresponding to the leg, are called “the sides.”

If she takes it off and covers herself with it in the night, she is unclean wherever the stain is found, since it can turn about. If she uses the cloak as a covering at night, then no matter where the blood is found, she must be considered impure because at night the cloak won't stay in one place. Even if she only put it around her head, it is possible she tossed and turned and that it ended up near her groin.

אם מגיע כנגד בית התורפה – as for example, that it (i.e., the bloodstain) is found at the top of the sleeve near the hand, that sometimes she stretches them from the arm and it correspondingly falls corresponding downwards.

And the same law applies to a pallium. The same rules apply to a Roman type of garment called a "pallium" or a "pallios" in other versions. This was a type of jacket.

ואם לאו – that it does not correspond with the pudenda, as for example, that it (i.e., the bloodstain) is found near the shoulders.

שהוא חוזר – sometimes that the top of he garment is reversed opposite her face below.

וכן בפוליון (and similarly a pallium/a sheet worn as a cloak and used for a bed-cover) -towel/apron that she covers herself with.

ותולה (she hangs it/blames it) – the bloodstain that she found.

[A woman] may attribute [a bloodstain] to any [external] cause to which she can possibly attribute it.
If [for instance] she had slaughtered a beast, a wild animal or a bird,
Or if she was handling bloodstains or if she sat beside those who handled them.
Or if she killed a louse, she may attribute the bloodstain to it. How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one up to the size of a split bean; And even if she did not kill it.
She may also attribute it to her son or to her husband.
If she herself had a wound that could open again and bleed she may attribute it to it.
Section one: If a woman sees a bloodstain on her body or on her cloak in a place where she must suspect that it could be menstrual blood but there is some external circumstance to which she could attribute it, she may attribute it to this source and remain pure. It is interesting that along with all of the stringencies the rabbis initiated when it comes to menstrual blood, they also instituted many leniencies, including those we see in this mishnah.
Sections 2-3: The mishnah now gives some examples of possible things she may have been doing that would allow her to attribute her bloodstain to another source.
Section four: Here we can see just to what extent the rabbis ruled leniently. Even if all a woman is doing is killing lice, which probably don't usually bleed that much, she may attribute a stain up to the size of a split bean to a louse. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus disagrees with the first opinion and holds that even if she is not the one killing them, she may attribute the bloodstain to the blood of the louse.
Section five: She can also attribute the stain to her husband or son for instance if they slaughtered an animal or did something else connected to blood.
Section six: Finally, she can also attribute the blood to her own wound, even if it was already scabbed over. As long as it is possible for the wound to open and bleed she can attribute her bloodstain to a wound. Note that this is so even if it doesn't look like the blood came from that wound.

בכל דבר שהיא יכולה לתלות – to state that it (i.e., the bloodstain) was not from here.

מאכולת (louse) – vermin.

עד כמה הוא תולה – with the blood of a louse/vermin.

עד כגריס (the size of a bean/split bean) – but more than this, the blood of a louse is not that great. And in this, however, she blames, and even though she didn’t know that she killed it. But Rabbi Hanina [ben Antigonos] disputes the first Tanna/teacher who stated, that yes (i.e., she may place the blame upon it), if she killed it, but not, if she didn’t. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos.

ותולה בבנה ובבעלה – that lie next to her, if they have a wound, to state that this bloodstain was from them.

ואם יש בה מכה – that the skin/membrane lifted off [the wound].

והיא יכולה להתגלע (and she is able to scratch it open) – to be revealed. From the language (Proverbs 17:14): “Before a dispute flares up/לפני התגלע הריב [drop it]," that is to say, that he should the skin/membrane and peel it and the wound will be revealed and blood comes out from it, she may blame it (i.e., rely upon it).

דם ולא כתם – but it is the Sages who decreed on the bloodstains, therefore, we follow them for a lenient ruling.

Introduction In this remarkable mishnah, Rabbi Akiva demonstrates just how lenient he can be in matters of doubtful impurity.

It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood." She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean. In this story a woman comes in front of Rabbi Akiva, presumably to ask him if the blood that she found somewhere on her body or clothing would make her into a menstruant. Rabbi Akiva searches for a reason to be lenient and finds one she had a wound and it might have opened (see yesterday's mishnah). He then rules that she is clean. This story is typical of Rabbi Akiva's lenient approach to halakhah he wishes to make halakhah lenient so that the woman can prevent being considered unclean.

He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, "And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood" blood but not a bloodstain. Interestingly, his students are astonished by this approach. Instead of searching for a leniency, they feel that Rabbi Akiva should have ruled strictly. Indeed, it is not that likely that the blood came from a wound that had already healed. Rabbi Akiva responds to them that from the Torah, only an actual blood flow can make a woman impure. The fact that a blood stain counts as a sign of impurity is a ruling of the rabbis. In such a case, we can, and indeed should be, lenient. The blood stain is a sign of impurity only if it is certain that it is menstrual blood.

עד שהוא נתון תחת הכר – the clothing that uses to clean/wipe herself at the time of sexual intercourse is called a “testing or examining rag”/piece of cloth used by women for ascertaining their condition of cleanness or uncleanness

A testing rag that was placed under a pillow and some blood was found: If it is round it is clean If it is elongated it is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok. The testing rag is what a woman uses after sexual intercourse to see if she was menstruating. The woman placed it under her pillow so she could look at it in the morning. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok, if she finds on it a round blood stain, then she can assume that it came from a louse and she is pure. However, if she finds an elongated blood stain then it was likely to be from when she checked herself and she is impure.

דם עגול טהור – for it is the blood of a louse.

משוך טמא – but if it is an elongated drop, it is impure, for the presumption is that it (i.e., the bloodstain) is from it, and at the time that she wiped herself, she blames this blood on the examining rag.

דברי ר' אליעזר בר ר' צדוק – and such is the Halakha.