QUESTION: The Mishnah (58b) teaches that when a woman finds a bloodstain (Kesem) that might have come from her but she felt no flow of blood leaving her, she may ascribe the Kesem to any reasonable external source, such as a louse that she previously killed. The Mishnah asks up to what size may a woman attribute a Kesem to a louse, and it answers that according to Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos she may be lenient if the Kesem is up to the size of a Gris of Pul (the size of a bean). This is because the blood of a louse does not make a Kesem larger than a Gris. (Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos also maintains that even if she did not previously kill a louse, she still may attribute the Kesem to it, in contrast to the opinion of the Tana Kama.)

The Gemara (end of 58b) quotes Rav Huna who says that if the Kesem is exactly the size of a Gris, it has the same status as a Kesem larger than a Gris, and the woman is therefore deemed a Nidah. Rav Chisda disagrees and maintains that a Kesem exactly the size of a Gris has the status of a Kesem smaller than a Gris, and she is Tahor. The Gemara attempts to prove Rav Chisda's opinion from a Beraisa that states that when there were drops of blood "l'Matah" ("below"; Rashi explains that this means small drops) and drops of blood "l'Ma'alah" ("above"; Rashi explains that this means large drops), we ascribe the large drops to a louse, up until the size of a Gris. The Gemara understands that this means that if the Kesem is exactly the size of a Gris, it has the status of a Kesem smaller than a Gris and the woman is Tahor. The Gemara rejects this proof and asserts that the Beraisa means that exactly a Gris is equivalent to more than a Gris and the woman is Tamei.

Why does Rashi explain that the words "l'Matah" and "l'Ma'alah" mean "small" and "large" drops of blood? These words always mean "below" and "above" and do not denote size at all.

ANSWER: The ARUCH LA'NER writes that Rashi explains these words in this way because his text of the Gemara differed from our text. The text of Rashi's Gemara is the text mentioned in the margin of our Gemara in the name of "Sefarim Acherim." According to that text, the Gemara does not say that "she may ascribe the blood to what is above, as long as the size is only a Gris" (which is the text of TOSFOS DH Hayu), but rather that "she may ascribe the blood to a louse if the upper limit of its size is a Gris." That is, Rashi's text is "Toleh Elyon," while Tosfos' text is "Toleh b'Elyon." Accordingly, Rashi explains that the word "l'Ma'alah" has a similar meaning to "Elyon" and it refers to the upper limit of the size of a Kesem.

Tosfos gives an entirely different explanation. Tosfos explains that "l'Matah" means "below her belt" and "l'Ma'alah" means "above her belt." The Gemara is saying that even when there are drops of blood below the belt, which, logically, should be ascribed to blood of Nidah, we ascribe those drops to the same phenomenon as the drops above the belt. Just as we say that the drops above the belt came from somewhere else and not from the woman, we say that the drops below the belt came from somewhere else and not from the woman. Tosfos explains this way because his text reads "b'Elyon," which means that we ascribe the blood, even though it is below the belt, to the same source that we ascribe the blood above the belt. Tosfos' explanation fits better with the simple translation of the words of the Gemara. Rashi was not able to explain this way because he had a different text of the Gemara. (D. BLOOM)

OPINIONS: In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yosi states that a woman who saw blood while urinating is Tahor, regardless of whether she was sitting or standing. Similarly, in the next case of the Mishnah, in which both a man and a woman urinated into a trough and blood was found inside it, Rebbi Yosi rules that the woman is Tahor. The Gemara asks why Rebbi Yosi needs to say that she is Tahor in the second case. Since Rebbi Yosi rules that she is Tahor when there is only one Safek (when she urinated alone, in which case the doubt is whether the blood came from her womb or from a wound), it is obvious that he would rule that she is Tahor when there are two Sfeikos (perhaps the blood came from the man, perhaps it came from her, and even if it came from her, perhaps it came from a wound)!

The Gemara answers that the second ruling of Rebbi Yosi teaches that she is Tahor even l'Chatchilah (that is, she may handle Taharos even l'Chatchilah) and not only b'Di'eved (that is, if she already handled them, they are not Tamei). There are two ways to understand this answer.

(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV and BARTENURA explain that the second ruling of Rebbi Yosi was recorded in the Mishnah in order to show that in his first ruling the woman is Tahor even l'Chatchilah. This appears to be the explanation preferred by Rashi and most other Rishonim.

(b) TOSFOS (14b, DH v'Rebbi Yosi Metaher) cites RABEINU CHANANEL who explains that the second ruling of Rebbi Yosi was recorded in order to show that only when there are two Sfeikos is the woman Tahor l'Chatchilah. In the first case of the Mishnah, where there is only one Safek, she is Tahor only b'Di'eved.

These two ways of understanding the Gemara have significant ramifications. According to the first explanation, a woman who sees blood while urinating is Tahor l'Chatchilah and may handle Taharos. According to the second explanation, a woman who sees blood while urinating may not handle Taharos (but any Taharos that she already handled are Tahor, b'Di'eved).