OPINIONS: The Mishnah (59b) teaches that if a Jewish woman lent her garment to a Nochris or to a Nidah, and after it was returned she wore the garment and found a stain on it, she may ascribe the stain to the Nochris or Nidah and she is Tahor. In the Gemara, Rav says that she may ascribe the stain to the Nochris only "b'Nochris ha'Ro'ah" -- when the Nochris has seen blood. Rav derives this from the comparison of a Nochris and a Nidah in the Mishnah. Just as a Nidah has seen blood, the Nochris mentioned in the Mishnah has also seen blood.

At what point must the Nochris have seen blood in order for the Jewish woman to ascribe the stain to her?

(a) RASHI and other Rishonim explain that Rav does not require that the Nochris see blood at the time that she borrows the garment (in order for the Jewess to attribute the stain to her), because in such a case the Mishnah would have no need to mention a Nochris who is a Nidah, since it already mentions a Nidah. Rather, Rav requires that the Nochris be old enough to see blood and that she has seen blood at least once in her life. If the Nochris has never seen blood in her life, then the Jewess may not attribute the stain to her (and the Jewess is Tamei).

(According to this understanding, the comparison that Rav makes between a Nidah and a Nochris is only that both of them have seen blood at least once in their lives. The comparison does not go further to say that just as the Nidah is seeing blood at the time she borrows the garment, the Nochris is also seeing blood at the time she borrows the garment.)

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 9:29) rules, "If a woman lends her garment to a Nidah, whether to a Nochris or to a Jewess..., she may ascribe the stain to the Nidah." The Rambam understands that the Nochris must also be a Nidah at the time that she borrows the garment in order for the owner of the garment to be able to attribute the stain to her.

(According to the Rambam, Rav's comparison between a Nidah and a Nochris goes so far as to say that just as the Nidah is seeing blood at the time she borrows the garment, the Nochris is also seeing blood at the time she borrows the garment.)

The Rambam apparently maintains that we may not ascribe the bloodstain to a source (the Nochris) that did not have blood at the time the garment was used. (See BEIS YOSEF YD 190:41, who understands the Rambam in this manner. The MAGID MISHNEH suggests that the Rambam's words may be interpreted to mean the same as the other Rishonim, but his explanation seems forced.)

QUESTION: According to the Beraisa, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi disagree about the circumstances in which a woman may ascribe a bloodstain on her garment to another woman who also used it. They agree that a woman may ascribe a stain to a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom on that woman's first day of seeing blood, since a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom is already Tamei and will not lose anything if the stain is attributed to her.

Rav Chisda says that the dispute between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi also applies in a case of two people, one of whom was Tamei and the other Tahor, who walked along two paths, one of which was Tamei and the other Tahor. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the Tahor person may ascribe the Tum'ah to the Tamei person (and say that the Tamei person walked along the Tamei path), while Rebbi says that the Tahor person may not ascribe the Tum'ah to the Tamei person.

Why is this case different from the case of a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom on her first day of seeing blood, in which Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi agree that she may ascribe the Tum'ah to the Tamei woman, since the woman is already Tamei? In the case of the two paths, we should assume that the Tamei person took the Tamei path since he loses nothing as a result! (TOSFOS DH Tamei)

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Tamei) explains that Rav Chisda is referring to a person who is Tamei with Tum'as Mes and who had started to count his seven days of Taharah. Rav Chisda says that according to Rebbi, since he had already begun the purification process, we cannot ascribe the Tum'ah to him because doing so would require him to start counting the seven days anew. According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, since he is still in a state of Tum'ah and may not immerse in a Mikvah at this point, we may ascribe the Tum'ah to him.

Rav Chisda seems to understand the dispute between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi to be based on whether we are concerned with ruining one's purification process and causing him to start over (Rebbi), or we are concerned with changing a person's status from Tamei to Tahor (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel). Alternatively, it could be that the dispute involves to what degree of ruining his count we are concerned. Rebbi maintains that even if attributing the Tum'ah to him would cause him to lose only a few days of his count, this still would be considered as causing him harm, and thus we may not attribute the Tum'ah to him. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that we may not attribute Tum'ah to him only if doing so would cause him to lose all of the days of Taharah. However, we may cause him to lose a few days of his count, for this is not considered as causing him harm.

QUESTIONS: The Mishnah says that when three women sleep in the same bed and blood is found under one of them, they are all deemed Tamei. Since they move around on the bed while they sleep, we do not know from whom the blood came. However, if one of them examined herself and found blood, we may attribute to her the blood that was found in the bed. She is deemed Tamei while the other two women are Tahor.

Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav says that this examination (or wiping; see TOSFOS DH v'Hu she'Badkah) must be performed immediately ("b'Shi'ur Veses") upon finding the blood in the bed. The Gemara says that Rav must rule like Bar Pada, who maintains that checking for and finding blood immediately after handling Taharos suffices to determine that there was blood coming from her moments earlier while she was holding the Taharos (and thus those Taharos are now considered Tamei). Rebbi Oshaya maintains that such an examination does not determine with certainty that she was bleeding moments earlier. RASHI (end of DH Ba'alah Patur) says that since, according to Rebbi Oshaya, the woman who found blood is Tamei only out of doubt, we cannot attribute to her the blood that was found in order to make the other women entirely Tahor.

(a) It is clear from the words of Rashi that we cannot attribute the blood that was found in the bed to the woman who is Safek Teme'ah in order to be Metaher the other women. However, this contradicts the Gemara earlier (60a) that says that we may attribute Tum'ah to a Safek Tamei in order for the other person to remain Tahor in the case of two people, one of whom was Safek Tamei and the other Tahor, who walked along two paths, one of which was Tamei and the other Tahor!

(b) It seems from Rashi that Rebbi Oshaya disagrees with the Mishnah and maintains that if one woman checks for and finds blood immediately, this still does not allow us to be Metaher the other women. The Mishnah, however, says explicitly that if one woman checks and finds blood, this allows us to be Metaher the other women. How can Rebbi Oshaya disagree with the Mishnah?

(a) Perhaps we may not attribute Tum'ah to a Safek Teme'ah in the case of the three women because the factor which made the woman Safek Teme'ah (her bleeding) is the same factor that produced the Tum'ah in the bed (the bloodstain). We may attribute Tum'ah only to a person whose Safek Tum'ah is independent of the present Tum'ah. (-Heard from ha'Gaon Rav Moshe Shapiro.)

Alternatively, Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina and maintains that we may not attribute Tum'ah to one who is only Safek Tamei. (M. KORNFELD)

(b) The MAHARAM (see also ROSH) explains that Rebbi Oshaya does not disagree with the Mishnah. On the contrary, he maintains that the Mishnah is saying that we may attribute the blood even to a Safek Teme'ah, such as to a woman who checked for (and found) blood after some time had passed (and not within "Shi'ur Veses"). This is also the intention of Rashi. Rashi is not saying that Rebbi Oshaya maintains that since she is Safek Tamei we cannot attribute the blood to her. Rather, he means that since she is Safek Teme'ah even when she checks immediately, there is no difference between checking immediately and checking later. In both cases we may attribute the blood to her, since, according to Rebbi Oshaya, we do attribute the blood to a Safek Teme'ah.

Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav, however, who maintains that there is a difference between checking immediately and checking later, must rule like Bar Pada, who differentiates between the two, making the former Tamei for certain and the latter Tamei only out of doubt. In addition, Rav Yehudah is of the opinion that we may not attribute Tum'ah to one who is Safek Tamei.